Is a Free Church minister travelling to a church meeting on the mainland a businessman? That is the big question causing ructions in that denomination just now. Many of our jet-setting ministers want a government ruling to say they are merely private individuals – but with a vocation.
Individuals with an island home address are entitled to cheap fares under the Air Discount Scheme, but not if they are travelling on business. The church now wants the Scottish Government (travel adviser B Souter, esq.), to make a ruling. I gather the government is minded to say no, that ministers in the clouds are not up there for business reasons.
However, the usual test is whether travellers are paying other expenses, like food and accommodation, out of their own pocket on these trips to Inverness and Edinburgh. If not, or if they are claiming back even a fraction of these costs later, then they are on business. Simple.
For some reason, the honest Joes of the Free Church aren’t currently too keen to apply that simple but crucial test which the rest of the world relies on.
I hear there is a rush on because of mounting fears that the government could soon start launching claims against ministers in the Free Church, and other churches too, for swindling the taxpayer.
Interestingly, I hear that Roman Catholic clergy, presumably on Uist and Barra, are also “watching developments” with interest. I bet they are. Ooh, you’d better get this sorted smartish, Mr A Allan.
If the churchmen are asked to answer questions like are you paying for your accommodation during the trip, how sure can we be that they will answer truthfully.
Even I, an atheist, would assume that Free Church ministers would tell the truth on something like that. They may have strange beliefs, but that does not make them liars, per se.
Guga they may not be liars but doi not forget they are collectively in denial,
What about other charities then? As I understand it, they can’t get cheap flights but there’s a possibility that members of the clergy will be able to get them? Doesn’t seem fair (unless the clergy are paying all expenses out of their own pocket and that doesn’t seem likely).
It will be really terrible if the church men don’t get away so often if they have to pay their own way . Now that Mr Donald Chrichton is engaged – - to a woman – - he will want to escape of the island every now and again. I saw him and the councillor Norman macleod flying of together this week. That will all have to stop now.
Ian-Mackay, do I sense some suspicion about the failed wannabe politician…..?
Get over yourselves..Does it matter if someone is a free church man..or a binman..are we not all ” jock thamsins bairns” sigh
I dont get all this Christian bashing on this blog..Me thinks you all protest too much
Dear Chris.
You are missing the point – as you so honestly admit. This is the type of shocking story that we should all be interested in. It is not about religion but actually about whether we all want to be treated the same or not.
Is it right that members of any group – it just so happens to be a very influential and powerful religious group – should be excused from the rules and financial penalties that are imposed on the rest of us on this island?
Now do you get it? No, probably not, because you don’t want to.
And that is the tragedy. Most islanders I have met in my year here are so meek they will just accept that some people must not be challenged because the laws of the land are for the small people and there is nothing they can do about it.
That is why we have extortionate fuel prices. It’s your fault, Chris – and people like you. Where were you when the brave few were protesting?
If decent islanders don’t protest about this latest move, and they won’t, the Scottish Government will cave in and the powerful people who don’t give a monkey’s about he likes of me and you, Chris, will win again.
Because budgets are set and targets must be met, what the Free Church is trying to do will definitely mean higher air fares for the rest of us. Did you think about that, Chris, before you started accusing people here?
Will you approve of what they are doing when the next increase in fares is quietly brought in – without any media announcements, of course? Maybe you are rich enough to still fly whenever you want – but I am not.
As I said, this is not about religion. It is about one law for them and one for us. Interestingly, it is not a two-tier society like this in Shetland or Orkney where ordinary people are far more committed to equality of opportunity.
Still, Chris, in your supreme wisdom, you think we protest too much.
Yours in sadness
Adrian
Adrian, what a load of dribble…………
I dont think its dribble because I think Adrian explained it well. I must admit I hadn’t thought how it would put up others fares. In the light of the consequences for the rest of us, I think the church should now withdraw.
Dont forget weare all paying for the airdiscount scheme with our taxes as it is . I dont want to pay 4 wee frees cheap ntravel over and above that . I protest .
I am the same as everyone else.. stuggling..and I sure as hell aint meek LOL
I got the issue over the flights..I am not stupid.
What I was trying to say..albeit badly..that on any issue here it seems that Christian bashing rears it’s head.. sigh, carry on
AND Adrian…I wasnt at the protest( I would have happily gone) but guess what I WAS AT WORK…you know, paying taxes an all…like a lot of us meek locals.
I think the attack on Chris is totally unwarranted. The grip that the church has had on the people of these islands wanes with every year passes. Yes the points that have been made are correct. The ADS has not changed over the years. It was set up wrongly in the beginning without consideration of the EC rules on subsidising businesses. All schemes like this are open to abuse but you would think the people in question would behave in a more honest fashion. Another example of people not following what they preach.
Adrian H, quote, “Is it right that members of any group – it just so happens to be a very influential and powerful religious group – should be excused from the rules and financial penalties that are imposed on the rest of us on this island?” What rules and financial penalties are you talking about, you paying some sort of penalty, have you been up to something crooked, shame on you!
Donald M Morrison, quote “I don’t think its dribble because I think Adrian explained it well. I must admit I hadn’t thought how it would put up others fares. In the light of the consequences for the rest of us, I think the church should now withdraw”. What utter dribble too!
Mary Manor Park, quote, “Dont forget weare all paying for the airdiscount scheme with our taxes as it is . I dont want to pay 4 wee frees cheap ntravel over and above that . I protest “. I’m sure you do Ms Manor! I left your errors in as it’s a quote…… I just wonder how many of you ‘wonderful citizens’ actually pay taxes, or have ever paid for that matter. We’re probably paying for your milk, TV licence and ‘all’ your travel…….. while you whinge about having to get up in the morning – I PROTEST……
“The Other Edward”, you’re as bad as ‘The Other Edward’ that comes on here. Quote “Another example of people not following what they preach”. Take a chill pill, that includes the rest of you ‘pillars of society’ as well; get off your ‘high horses’……. Why not give them the benefit of doubt, of course you can’t, you just love “Christian bashing” as Chris puts it, guided by your leader. Churches are registered charities, just maybe, they thought this left the churches exempt from it, they’re not a business. Now, why do I doubt you fair-minded, honest, hardworking reliable discount benefiting people won’t accept that – maybe I’m paranoid………I doubt it!
Iain X will you ban advocacy of this blog please. you cshould not allow someone who automatcly thnks everyone with diferent opinion to him is a sponger and taxdodger. please.
James, I am sorry to disagree with you. Blogs are just that. Anyone may put their points across any way they please within reason. Iain X runs it pretty much the way it shoulb be – minimal interference.
It is up to all those participating to conduct themselves appropriately and they should refrain from personal attacks of any form (unfortunately not all abide in that one).
It is also worth considering that pretty much everyone contributing to the blog will quickly identify those who have extreme and/or bigoted views and tend to ignore them.
There has been an unfortunate trend over the past couple of weeks for many or the posts to decline into a tit for tat between a a few individuals which usually results in bringing any discussion on that topic to an unnatural conclusion as everyone else gets fed up with it and stops posting to pick up on any new topic.
C’est la vie!
Advocacy you know nothing about me and fail to understand how you can comment on what my beliefs and values are. I think it is quite clear to everyone who travels whether it is on business or not. Maybe your issue is that the Labour/LibDem coalition got it wrong when they set the programme up. You come across as being very angry that the church is being challenged on this issue or is it the political references which irk you.
James ‘oh’ James, oh ‘poor’ James. A blog where we all have to agree, if we don’t then ‘ban’ that MAN. His opinion isn’t right, it’s different to ours! He makes assumptions about us based on our comments, how dare he challenge us, he’s defending religious bigots. He doesn’t conduct himself properly because he attacks us when we attack with ‘our own’ bigoted and extreme responses – how dare he ‘Iain’, you must ban him so we’re not challenged, so we may attack, accuse and lambast without recourse! Why’s he ‘titting’ and ‘tatting’ and why doesn’t he just lay back for us. He’s angry with us, he’s got such extreme views to ours, ‘even’ worse than ours.
Let us be clear on one thing children, if you can’t handle the playground then get back to class.
If you contribute your personal thoughts and views for all the world to see, then you will be challenged, accept it. ‘Extremism’, is only extreme to those in receipt, why, because their views are so extreme to those giving!
Right. Free church, wee church, council, catholics, Jewish, Monster Raving Loonies, business use, holiday makers…if you live here, have an ADS card etc, then you should be allowed to use it. How do you police it for business use anyway? The scheme encourages a bit of economic and social mobility which is not such a bad thing. Forty percent of the fare is tax. The ADS scheme discounts the normal fare by 40%. So we are getting a sort of tax free fare. Why in the name of anything at all should we (or anyone else) have to pay 40% tax on air fares? And besides, we should automatically get a discount for having to fly in a rusty tin bath having been treated like international terrorists by aiport security. Plus if they no longer want to give us a proper drink when on board, dump the half-hearted cup of tea too. It is just annoying watching the blone struggle up and down a 7 inch aisle pushing a 10 ton trolley with a few crappy biscuits on it. Five minutes to slosh down something lukewarm in a plasitc cup and the in-flight experience is over. Discounted fares….pah! They should be paying us to spend an hour on that thing.
I am sorry if my comment upset anyone but what I would like to really know is whether anyone else apart from Adrian thinks giving the churches an exemption could push up the costs for the rest of us.
If so then I would hope the churches would think carefully about the effect on the wider community. If not then I would be in favour of an exemption.
I see a lot of church people travelling.
Donald, you may do, but how many travel under the banner of the church? Why make the assumption that every church person is doing so.
Donald I think your assumptions are a wee bit unfair. I know that the majority of the church people seldom smile but that does not reflect that it is a pleasure trip.
“…having been treated like international terrorists by airport security.”
That is an interesting side-point. Until about a year or so ago, it seemed that the heaviest western hemisphere security, even in these post-9/11 years, was in Outer Hebrides airports. Doing the three-plane two-day hop from Balivanich to Los Angeles, and back again, it was weird that the most intense security was at … Balivanich. Even though the staff there were universally friendly (unlike at LAX).
It’s a bit different now, with the full body image scanners in US airport – the “choice” being that, or a full pat-down (including those areas). Either option is unpleasant, and am not sure how it’ll go down when it’s eventually (because they will come) installed in Outer Hebrides airports. The full body image scanners in particular will throw up the unique and tricky local issue that those monitoring the images will sometimes be related to, or know, those whose naked images they check.
Anyway; sorry for the side-track, but this is an issue that will come to the three airports in the OH at some point.
pathetic debate.who cares if a very minor percentage of travellers get a slightly reduced rate of travel,happens all the time.Good luck to any who can negotiate a good deal,how many people on the same flight pay the same fare?very few
Yes, pathetic………….
“However, the usual test is whether travellers are paying other expenses, like food and accommodation, out of their own pocket on these trips to Inverness and Edinburgh. If not, or if they are claiming back even a fraction of these costs later, then they are on business. Simple”
The above quote is from Mr X’s original post.Does that mean when I go and partake of my family or friends free hospitality on the mainland i’m on business?
I think ‘I cant believe its not butter’ has got it spot on .
No doubt there are more than church people at it. Is it correct to just pick on them?
@The Other Edward. No, it’s not correct to pick on them.
My current bugbear if it is allowed (as indicated in the article) is that it isn’t fair on other charitable organisations which have been told that they can’t use ADS as it falls under business travel. I can’t see what the difference is between a minister and a charity worker is – they’re both doing it for “good” rather than making money so why should one charitable organisation (i.e. the free church) be allowed while others are not?
This is not an anti church point but as far as I can see, it is only the Free Church that has actually applied for a ruling from the government. I think thats the whole point of the story.
I think the problem why businesses were excluded was that the EC could interpret ADS as a subsidy. The question is whether charities including the church are a business. The next question is whether organisations like the council and the NHS are exempt as they are not a profit making business. What do you guys think
Well like so many other good ideas to balance the costs associate with living on an Island, this scheme was introduced with good intentions but unfortunately without the upfront thinking required to avoid such issues.
I believe the intention originally (wheteher ever stated or not) was to reduce the cost to residents for personal travel as opposed to reduce the business costs of Island businesses.
Then you have to ask about the RET scheme and how that subsidy is applied to all travel. So what’s the difference?
The NHS question is a good one. Consider a patient who has to travel to Glasgow for example. The travel office books the flight ahead of time and pays the full price. Yet if the individual is on the ADS scheme they could save the NHS a bit of money by booking their own flights and claiming the reduced fare back along with any further expences they may be entitled to claim.
And so the story twists and turns… A “can of worms” springs to mind!
As soon as anyone starts to ask the questions on this it just raises more. It is little wonder the Free Church has seeked clarification.
@Mr Placid – you’ve hit the nail on the head by saying RET is available to all – it’s not restricted to just island residents while ADS is only available to island residents hence ADS could be classed as an illegal subsidy as it gives an economic advantage (don’t laugh) to islanders over mainland companies.
The NHS example is a good one but since the ADS discount is paid by central government having the individual purchase the ticket wouldn’t save anything overall – it just comes from one pot or another. (The same applies to the council).
As to the question from The Other Edward regarding if non-profit making organisations should be exempt is a good one but as non-profit companies can provide similar services to profit making companies the argument would again be – unfair subsidy to one group over another.
(In this case the Free church does have a good argument as religious groups don’t have commercial competition.)
I think your comments Mr Placid sum up much of the issue. The difference between the ADS and RET is that RET applies to everyone who travells, where as the ADS only applies to card holders. I think this is how RET complies with EC regulations and ADS is suspect. Like you say ADS was set up for personal use rather than business. I’m not that impressed by it, I don’t know how much is truly saved when using it. Just like ADS you get a good discount when you book in advance. The further in advance the bigger the discount/
Not so long ago you had to pay a toll if you wanted to go over a bit of water called the Firth of Forth and another if you wanted to go over one called the Firth of Tay. The SNP govt. abolished those taxes for travelling over a bit of water, again for all users. So what is the diffrence to RET and ADS on this one. Perhaps the easy way out would be to get rid of the ADS and just abolish the tax associated with this means of getting over a bit of water? That way island business users would not be getting an unfair advantage over mainland businesses as all would be being treated equally, like the bridge toll abolishment. As it stands mainland businesses, in particular those on the east side have benefitted most from the removal of the tolls due to amount of use, so I see no inconsistency in removing air travel taxes in travel to/from the islands. RET is a different type of subsidy.
The problem with your suggestion which I feel is reasonable is that unlike ADS which is controlled by Holyrood the tax is controlled by Westminster. We are all aware of Westminster’s attitude to our fuel issue. We will all have grown wings ourselves before they would even recognise the problem.
How far do you want to expand this discussion?
Tax is a difficult thing to apply locally without clashing with fairness and equality (beware anyone fighting for local income tax). And as an aside do we really trust the Comhairle with a locally raised tax – seriously??
Fuel tax, now there’s another hot topic. Is it fair to reduce the tax on fuel for remote communities, why should we get a tax reduction. On the other hand why should we have to pay currently 14p per litre more for our fuel?
The issue really is not what ministers or charities or businesses are are applying for or seeking advice on, it is thye fact that the scheme, though as I saaid before well intentioned, has been ill thought out and we are trying to face upto this fact.
The other Edward – sorry our last posts crossed in the ether of the internet – so my 10:47am post (clock not gone back yet in Maciver land!) was a continuation of my previous post though serves well ongoing discssion anyway.
I don’t disagree that taxation is a minefield and no doubt what we see as a simple solution can in reality be very complex. People living in rural areas tend to have less of an income with higher living costs. These costs tend to be even higher if you live on an island. There is the argument that we chose to live on the island. This being the case we can assume goverment policy is centralisation which it is to some degree. It would be rather sad if the Western Isles went down the same road as St Kilda because of economics.