Comment

Sir David’s basic argument would seem to be that mistakes were made early on in the development of the project which have vastly inflated the cost of the new Scottish Parliament building.

He says that "never in a month of Sundays" could the parliament have been built for 40 million, which was the first official figure. But he does not explain on what basis that initial cost was estimated.

Sir David also argues that the cost was inflated by the extensive work needed to preserve Queensberry House. He does not explain why a survey of the historic building, which architect Enric Miralles described as "worse than a ruin", failed to detect serious structural problems.

He argues that another major delay to the project was caused by the need to virtually redesign the parliament building to the specific needs of MSPs. It does seem strange that the original design for a purpose-built parliamentary building were so lacking in this department.

Sir David’s arguments are a defence of the Scottish Parliament project that the public, who feel they are being ripped off, just won’t understand.

The public can rightly feel they have been misled over the cost. First they were told it would be 40m, then it was capped nearly five times higher at 195m. Now the bill is 308m and rising.

The difficulty is that Sir David’s arguments don’t allay that fear and, indeed, he is dismissive of such concerns, saying that the public will "forget" about the cost when they see how impressive the finished product is.

Whether the public like the building or not, this is a specious argument. If the people of Scotland had been asked whether they wanted to spend in excess of 300m on a new Scottish Parliament building they might well have said yes.

But the point is that the public still do not understand why it is costing more than seven times as much as was originally estimated and 100m more than the capped figure they were reassured that it would not exceed.

Sir David is still not able to clarify what the final cost of the building will be. But what is clear is that he still does not understand the public’s anger at the way this project has been handled.

Learning curve

IT is easy to see why Edinburgh’s education leaders were tempted to produce glossy brochures to persuade parents to send their children to state schools.

There is an understandable frustration that the achievements of the comprehensives are so often unfavourably compared to what is attained by independent schools.

However, they are missing a fundamental point. Parents are not seduced into spending thousands of pounds on private education by a glossy brochure, but by exam results which outperform the state sector.

Recent research suggested that children of middle class parents do equally well in exam passes regardless of the sector. Yet that research did not take account of the difference in grades being attained.

City education leader Ewan Aitken may not believe in league tables as a measure of a school’s success. But the reality remains that parents want the best for their own children, and that usually means the best possible results in exams and the best possible place at college or university.

Parents will make decisions on exam results, and this is where the council must concentrate its efforts.