12/02/2013 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, we reveal some important details

Edinburgh council has been keeping from its council tax payers. Tens

of millions of pounds may be jeopardised in the scandal of a

tenement repair. The council has refused to publish its specially

commissioned investigations. Surely there's nothing to hide?

Also tonight, possibly the most famous Scot of all, Macbeth or

stock of all the publicity, was he actually quite a good bloke?

Edinburgh Council spent tens of millions on repairing tenements and

has not claimed the money back. We can reveal reports from a forensic

accountant into the scandal are being held back by the council.

Hundreds of home owners have no idea whether their council is

guilty or not of poor management or Instead of trying to give other

owners of a tenement block took every what building repairs need to

be done, in Edinburgh, the council can arrange it for you. It is

called a statutory notice and each donor pays their share. But a year-

and-a-half ago, we reported allegations of wrongdoing and

owners' anger at the way it was being handled. The last we heard

about the total cost of the sandstone was �250,000 and I think

that what they have done is seen this as an opportunity to do a

Rolls-Royce job on a building that was not necessary. And we cannot

afford the Rolls-Royce. We received a letter and it tells the so they

are quite clearly, on no account give these clients any indication

of cost as they do change day-by- day. So you were expected to have

your cheque book open and let somebody else fill it in? That is

what it seems like. So the council brought in independent auditors,

Deloitte pull stop it took around a year to scrutinise finances over

who knew what when and Edinburgh city council's decision and then in

spring last year, we heard their investigations were finally

complete. Since then we have been awaiting the publication of what

became known as the Deloitte report. We are still waiting. It turns out

there are two reports. Project Soul and Project Power. What was in them

that had to remain secret for so long? -- project Sella. Here are

some of the points I have been allowed to see. Evidence of

problems with cost to home owners, work done not necessary for public

safety, overcharging, tendering and quality control.

It also says a Contractor obtained confidential access to a payment

system, 850 times over four years. Project Sola is highly critical of

the finances of the project. It was effectively operating a huge

overdraft which the report suggests expose the council to legal and

financial risks. Investigators also found an internal report about the

department from as far back as 2000 update which was destroyed before

Deloitte started their investigation. I have spoken to one

former employee who has seen the report as well. They told me that

many of these points are wrong and taken out of context. These errors

were already known about and called the report a �2 million waste of

public money. The tendering process was 110% above board, approved by

the procurement and legal departments of the council and said

contractors were not just writing cheques to themselves. Other former

employees have spoken differently. They do not want to be identified

either. It was unbelievable, what was going on. In one section, a

spreadsheet was drawn up and it was claimed that was to put �7 million

worth of work done but only one put �3 million could be identified --

2.7 million worth. If there was money going missing, the council

would have no idea. He also claims that contractors' rates were being

seen by other builder so they could undercut their rivals.

Can you be certain that contractors had hold of other contractors'

rates? Yes, more than 100% positive. I saw them in a contractors' office,

and a contractor who had a lot to gain from those rate. The council

What the Deloitte reports remain unpublished, there will always be

more questions than answers but fresh questions are being raised

and perhaps not providing all the answers, people are hoping for

answers. And Emma-Jane condemned and Bruce Thomson say they have not

had any answers they were looking for. They have not even received a

bill. Fiona Walker is here now. Fiona,

will these reports ever be published? After spending what is

thought to be about �2 million on them plus the costs of getting a

team of external Surveyors in, suspending staff on full pay, you

would hope we would see something. The council said they would publish

a version and the reason they haven't so far, they said, is

because their ongoing criminal proceedings and an internal

disciplinary process. What else is there to come on this? Probably

quite a lot. These reports are 79 pages and 99 pages long

respectively. Lots of detail, I have not seen all sections of the

report and I should let knowledge that there was some good work done

within the property conservation department but delight really did

paint a picture of mismanagement -- Deloitte, and financial, shall we

say, incoherence it. They are strong on that and the language

used is fairly steady -- incoherent. Discreet recommendations, and they

say it is imperative and then they are saying to the council that this

money coming in, sorry, going out to contractors which is public

money which is not being recouped quickly enough or at all from home

owners for accountants, that is obviously baffling. They are

operating on an overdraft system which is about �28 million in one

department. So they are strong on that. A former member of staff was

thought to be saying that that money is recoverable or most of it

and is there anything wrong with operating an overdraft like that?

Clear this up because lots of people watching will think what I

thought when I saw this, which is, "hang on a minute, why are the

police not involved in this already?" they are. They have

looked at this in a couple of department. The property care

department, they have charge people in that so we have not gone into

allegations in this report because we cannot for obvious reasons.

There are two different departments and in this department by private

property, where homeowners are involved, there have been no

criminal charges. People might have expected them but there has not

been the evidence to charge people and their poor people were keen to

see what was in the delight reports. -- and therefore people working.

Some people have been reinstated, sacked and in this report, yes.

That process is still ongoing and homeowners themselves are also

poised to take the council to court perhaps when they get the final

bill. Thank you. If you have set your mind to thinking of the most

famous Scot in the world, he might be worse than settling on Macbeth.

Cultures across the globe are aware of the tragic and murderous

Scottish king. Even if they know little enough of the play and last

of the real historical character. Would it be good if we knew a bit

It was one of the great historical finds of recent times. It is our

inclusion the individual we found is indeed Richard III.

confirmation last week that the twisted body discovered in a

shallow grave in Leicester is that of Richard III. Over 400 years ago,

he was demonised by Shakespeare as a notorious nephew murdering King.

Our horse for my kingdom Next last week's confirmation has launched a

raft of theories. People claimed he is maligned and is not the evil

caricature or depicted by Shakespeare. With this in mind, one

MSP called for a rehabilitation of one of the most famous Scots of all

time, Macbeth. Seen here in a modern feature, Shakespeare painted

Macbeth as a man spurred on by his wife to kill the king. He has them

got to keep killing and his state of mind disintegrates into paranoia.

This Conservative MSP is calling for us to think more kindly about

Macbeth. By feel Shakespeare has maligned Macbeth. If you look at

the history, you will discover his reign was a peaceful one. Scotland

enjoyed a degree of prosperity under him. There was a rarity 1,000

years ago. Shakespeare's Macbeth has been re-imagined many times. A

leading academic has written extensively on what history tells

us about the real Macbeth. Shakespeare was extreme impressive

in portraying this man who is quite ordinary at the beginning but then

turns into retirement. He was somebody who was not big, open to

new ideas, did not go into Northumberland raiding to keep his

own boys happy. He moved away from that. He was a great warrior and he

did kill Duncan. But that was in battle, not in his castle. It is

somebody that does not conform in the least to the image given by

Shakespeare. Aberdeenshire is where Macbeth died in battle. Apart from

a Macbeth pub, there is nothing tourism about it. Should we not be

cashing in on this? A visit Scotland says it welcomes anything

that promotes Scotland at a local and national level. Does it really

matter if he was a murderous her paranoid killer or a calm kind

King? Most of us can separate life from art.

I am joined now by Dr Paul Innes, who teaches English Literature at

Glasgow University and specialises in Shakespeare. And by Dr Simon

Taylor, who researches Scottish history and onomastics - that is

the study of names - also at Glasgow University.

Did he kill anyone? Did he kill Duncan? Not personally, probably.

Duncan died in battle and they were fighting. That was not a

particularly unusual event. A bunker and was looking. And Macbeth

was his noble? -- Duncan was at the King. That is debatable. Macbeth's

father and cousin working. The idea of making sure that was passed from

father to son did not exist. A he was still rebelling against the

chap who was the king? He would not see it as rebellion. What was

Duncan and later Macbeth, what with a ruling? Regional warlords. They

were ruling making do more which is called a bar. -- ruling a kingdom.

They would not have controlled the Highlands and islands. They would

have controlled Lothian. It was the core of what became that England

are a -- the kingdom of Scotland. Your idea is Shakespeare, it was

translated into walls of the Roses type of stuff? Yes. It is not what

happened but that is what was written for the English readership.

Bear in mind, they were writing towards the end of what people

thought was the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. There is a

possibility you end up with a Scottish came on the throne of

England. Why portray Macbeth in such a bad way? If you are about to

have a Scot on the throne of England, why I wrote about -- quite

right about a villainous Scottish king? It is good box-office. Also,

the king who is about to become King of England and Scotland claims

descent from Banco, who Macbeth murders. In the play, not in

reality. I still do not quite get the idea... I know there was the

system of alternating Kings from different families. I do not get

the idea, why would Macbeth not think of it as a rebellion? To cut

to the chase, Macbeth's main crime was he did not establish a dynasty

that flourished. He was ousted from the throne by Duncan's son and

Malcolm founded a successful dynasty but stayed on the throne

for centuries. They had a vested interest in vilifying the death.

But Malcolm would have had as good a claim to the throne as Macbeth?

He did. I am sorry to keep going on about this but why it would Macbeth

see it as rebellion to be fighting against Duncan? But the idea of

kingship was so different then and the birth -- and the death, he was

the son of making as well. He was married to a member of Malcolm's

royal family. It looks like his wife, who has had was press, --

worst press, we have evidence they were giving to the church, they

work -- she belonged to the mid-off Kindred. It is not a million miles

from Shakespeare. Look at the history. What are they concerned

with? What does that mean to be making -- to be a king. There are

discontinuities in history. It is not a million miles away. They

logic is similar because what you have his cousin fighting over the

kingship. It is similar to the walls of the Roses. It is a

powerful performance from Shakespeare that an English

audience can get a handle on. Shakespeare was picking up on bad

press Macbeth was getting that was Macbeth's main failure. Not that

found a successful dynasty. Then he got the bad press. Is there any

point in the debilitating Macbeth? He does not sound like a stand-up

man. -- are rehabilitating. think he is crying out for it.

Macbeth appears, he was a Gallic Speaker, his name it means some of

life. Historians tend to write his name in the old way. I think we

should start calling the King, a competent, very generous, a good

monarch, we call him by the Gallic name. And we call the Shakespeare

character Macbeth. So we can distinguish between them. A tourist

industry, will you have a sign saying saying nothing happened?

could bring the Normans in and build castles. The attraction of

Macbeth is the evil. People get confused if we are not even calling

him by the same name. Shakespeare's of birth is over 500 years since

the man it is based on. -- Shakespeare's Macbeth. There is a

lot of confusion in Shakespeare's sources and in Shakespeare's

portrayal. Could you give me a short answer to onomastics? Why is

the geography... Why is the geography so good? Because it comes

from Scottish sources. A great historian... Know, that is too long

an answer. The programme is about to finish. The sources for the