Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Spending Review – A Scottish Perspective

Oct 20

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Holyrood, Westminster | 8 Comments

Well, the Comprehensive Spending Review has finally been delivered. There were no showstoppers today as most of the bad news had been drip-fed out to the public over the past few weeks. Half a million people losing their jobs, a slashing of welfare and a drastic cut to Social Housing were the biggest bouts of bad news for me, particularly as charging claimants near market rates surely takes the ‘social’ aspect out of it. I will be looking on in interest as this Green Investment Bank gets up and running but I suspect it is a new name for old money as the “up to £1bn” funding was half of what was expected and way short of the hoped for £6bn. There is certainly little evidence that the Chancellor is making good on the “greenest Government ever” boast.

From a Scottish perspective, this is all largely irrelevant of course. Osborne’s decisions on health, education and justice spending won’t make a difference to what money is spent by Holyrood. The big figure is how much the devolved budget would be cut by.

The expectation from the Scottish Government was that there would be a £4bn cut in the devolved budget over the next four years, starting with a £1.2bn cut from next year. My suspicion of an element of expectations management and low-balling from the First Minister on this one was pleasantly unfounded as there will be below-inflation cash rises for each of the devolved regions as a result of increased spending in health and education. Cameron’s ‘respect’ agenda in operation or just a lucky corollary of decisions taken elsewhere?

However, Scotland is nonetheless now at a double risk of having a welfare state culture without the welfare and a public sector reliant economy without a sufficiently sizeable public sector. Whether Osborne will be phasing (some could say weaning) claimants off their cheques remains to be seen but we are now living the doomsday scenario of the almighty clash of an ardent capitalist Tory Government in London and an unapologetic socialist Government in Scotland.

The unavoidable fissures that this creates around the geographical differences in political philosophy and squeezed debits and credits of a shrinking Scottish budget may make life significantly more painful north of the border than it will be in the south.

The word fairness has been hammered into the British public by the coalition leaders but it seems to have been merely sledge-hammered into the CSR as a presentational bolt-on.

One could argue that Scotland is dealt with fairly through the strict Barnett formula. If England and Wales see spending decrease, then so too will Scotland and in equal measure (more or less). However, that is to perhaps overlook any disproportionate effect of Defence cuts north of the border, on the increased cost of fuel north of the border, on the punitive Grid charges holding back Scotland’s renewable revolution and on the lack of Barnett consequentials from the Olympics to Crossrail.

They are all separate battles for separate occasions though. The real unavoidable challenge lies at John Swinney’s door and the Scottish Parliament’s as a whle as they must now implement a Scottish Spending Review and budget with the figures that can now be punched into a calculator to find how much is at our disposal.

Osborne has done what he thinks is his best, the baton has been passed to the Scottish Government so, to amend an old phrase, pain devolved is pain delayed.

Put another way – the worst is yet to come.

Home Rule and the Scottish Labour Party

Oct 20

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 12 Comments

We have another guest post today, this from Yousuf Hamid, formerly star Labour blogger under the handle Yapping Yousuf. It’s just coincidence that we’ve had two Labour guests in a row, promise.

There’s now less than 7 months until the most important election of my lifetime, the biggest test for devolution and an equally large test for progressive unionist parties.

At risk of falling foul of Malc’s unremittingly positive brief, I don’t think that even the staunchest nationalists would deny that the SNP have run out of steam in the last few months, but I don’t believe that this will be enough to deliver a Labour victory, this will be an election about the future far more than a referendum on the past.

I should say at the outset that I call it a great test of devolution not because of the importance of localism (as nice as it is) but because it is a chance to rectify the iniquity of having Conservative policies imposed on a left wing Scotland whist keeping the relative financial prosperity of the union.

I would argue that over the last 10 years we have had a government that people in Scotland, if not quite loved, broadly agreed with and certainly voted for, but now that is no longer the case and this is a serious problem that unionists should never ignore.

I say unionists but it’s not a phrase I’m terribly comfortable with: unionists and nationalists are the politics of the SNP, ours should always be between progressives and conservatives, and that is why we should never ignore the constitutional question.

The cuts which are coming are Tory cuts but they are also cuts only happening because of votes in the South of England. Scotland does not believe in their necessity and it shouldn’t have to deal with the full severity of them.

We didn’t vote for the Tories (let us ignore the Liberal Democrat votes as no Liberal Democrat voter knew they were voting for savage cuts) and the institution of the Scottish Parliament means we don’t have to have them in their entirety.

With Calman we will have more powers than ever on borrowing and tax to stop them.

Yes, we know that Alex Salmond will use every excuse to pick a fight with Westminster but that doesn’t mean that we have to be uber-unionists. In a fight between the compassionate left wing conscience of the Scottish people and the wishes of a right wing Government, I know where my backing goes.

Scottish Labour has a fantastic record on home rule for Scotland. Keir Hardie fought for it in 1888, Donald Dewar delivered it in 1999 and Wendy Alexander started the process of strengthening it in 2007.

The truth is that we are the only party to have delivered home rule to Scotland and we have a great case to make that we will be the ones who can make it work in these difficult times.

This election will be about who can protect Scotland from Tory Westminster cuts. The case for independence is now as close to dead as I can ever remember but those of us who want to make sure that in 2011 we wake up to a Labour Scottish Government need to be on the right side of the constitutional question.

We recently marked the 10th anniversary of Donald Dewar’s death and it is easy to get swept up in the romanticism of past heroes of the party, but all the great socialist heroes of this country (from Hardie to Wheatley to Maxton) all understood the importance of the constitution in delivering their socialist utopias.

There was a day when Labour politicians were warned of falling into the ‘comfort zone’ of far left politics, in Scotland the comfort zone of uber-unionism in the face of widely different voting patterns in Scotland and England is a far greater threat to electoral success.

It’s not actually a comfort zone for most Scottish Labour party members but it is a corner we mustn’t back into.

Tartan Penny – We’re gonna Parly like it’s 1999

Oct 15

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 12 Comments

With October 20th and the detail of George Osborne’s Spending Review now less than one week away, the pressure on Finance Secretary John Swinney to point out where the requisite savings in Scotland’s budget will be made is building. Education Secretary Mike Russell has tried to take the sting out of the growing media focus on the spending problems facing Scotland by delaying a decision on university funding until after the election. However, procrastination of the big decisions will not work forever, particularly as the SNP has stated a big generous giveaway for the next parliamentary term in the shape of a continued Council tax freeze, a decision that has led to much of the press, unfairly I reckon, to attack the SNP’s supposed ‘lack of wisdom’.

It is difficult to predict where in Scotland’s budget a largely left wing public would accept significant slicing, particularly when the cost of policies is difficult to pin down (does abolition of student fees cost £15m or £1.5bn?). Consequently, if savings simply politically can’t be made, the growing pressure will result in having to let off some steam through tax rises.

Is it for financially squeezed moments like these that Scots decided to give the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers for? Should political parties start looking at raising tax by 1p or 2p in the pound north of the border? It would be an enormously difficult decision.

Again, the numbers are hazy, but an undated Scottish Office document states that raising income tax by 1p in the pound would raise around £150m a year. I am, of course, happy to be corrected on that but if it is pensioners, students and the unemployed who deserve the most protection from cuts, then surely the employed are fair game. The question is, who is most likely to adopt this high-risk strategy in the election campaign.

For me, the SNP would be the most likely of the main five parties to resurrect their ‘tartan penny’ tactic from the 1999 election campaign. Alex Salmond has the most to lose from reversing policies that he presided over in the past four years and, over and above potential reversals, the FM will struggle to avoid committing to policies such as tuition fees, free care for the elderly and the latest Forth Bridge before May 5th. Increasing tax may well be the least worst option as the SNP seek to find that coveted fine line between financial credibility and public popularity.

The Lib Dems may join the SNP in pushing for an increase in tax rates, rekindling the party’s ‘Penny for Scotland’ campaign of 1999. Tavish Scott needs something as he must be keen to mark his party out in this election campaign for fear of anonymity or, worse, being seen only as Cameron’s little helpers down south. Mimicking an SNP penny in the pound would mark them out as frontrunners for coalition partners.

The Green Party may also consider campaigning on this extra tax. It’s not my position to say but investment in a renewable industry, keeping tuition fees abolished and bringing housing stock up to a higher standard of insulation appear to be top priorities, and expensive ones too.

The Conservatives, needless to say, will not be in favour of a tax rise in Scotland. The UK Tories preferred an austere 80/20 blend of cuts/tax rises to combat the deficit and will no doubt continue to ‘trust hard working families to spend their own money rather than the state’. Pah, the Scottish Government Finance Secretary can spend our hard-earned money better than any of us, everyone knows that… (I jest, sort of)

Labour, I would expect, will be staunchly against any use of the tax varying powers which would throw up an interesting dividing line for the voters if they had the choice of the SNP (higher income rates and frozen Council tax) or Labour (consistent income rates and increased Council Tax). Iain Gray would doubtless try to attack the SNP as both ‘cutters’ and ‘tax raisers’ which, while incongruous to me, may well go down well with certain parts of the electorate.

In short, will the 2011 election be 1999 all over again?

I personally hope so but with a different result. Scotland can be bold, brave and follow Finland and Sweden down the path of high tax, wide provision services, all the while climbing the regular ‘happiness indices’ that Scandinavian countries find themselves near the top of as a direct result of their relatively higher taxation levels.

(Update – It seems the SNP has already categorically denied raising income tax rates in the Parliament chamber, in response to a direct question from Lord George Foulkes. Courtesy of NewsnetScotland. I still have the Nats favourite to increase the income tax though. It is, after all, the right thing to do….)

Can we find a cure for asbestos-related diseases?

Oct 14

Posted by Guest Blog in Health, Holyrood | 6 Comments

In the interests of good debate, and in recognition of the fact that no one party will ever have all the answers, this blog will from time to time step out of its comfort zone and invite contributions from elsewhere on the political spectrum. We are therefore pleased to announce a guest post from one of Labour’s “new generation”, John Park MSP.

Since 1999 the Scottish Parliament has taken positive and far reaching decisions on health issues – free personal care and the smoking ban are two that immediately spring to mind.

Perhaps not appreciated more widely is that our parliament also has a proud record in tackling the major problems faced by sufferers of asbestos-related diseases and by their families. These haven’t been health measures but rather justice measures. Most recently the Scottish Parliament agreed legislation to overturn a House of Lords decision that would have prevented workers exposed to asbestos from claiming against employers for developing pleural plaques (benign localised scars that can develop from exposure to asbestos).

And in 2006, following a Members Bill from Clydebank MSP Des McNulty, the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007 was introduced. Before our parliament passed this legislation, those affected by an asbestos related disease would have to make a choice between either making a claim for damages for their own pain and suffering, or waiting until they passed away – thus allowing their surviving family members to make a claim for loss. This change in legislation meant that they could claim for both, removing an agonising burden from sufferers and their families at a difficult time.

We have moved forward in terms of justice due to the vigorous campaigns run by local asbestos groups (particularly those established in the former shipbuilding communities on the Clyde) and the wider Scottish trade union movement. But another more troubling reason for the concentration on a justice approach to ensure that sufferers and their families are properly compensated – rather looking to advancements in health – has been the long-held view that a cure for asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis was virtually unattainable.

However there is growing evidence from across the globe that with intensive treatment patients can survive much longer than previously thought possible, and in some cases the cancer has gone into remission. I have met many people who have lost a family member to an asbestos-related disease and what is abundantly apparent is the desperation they all felt experienced knowing that there was no hope of their loved one living for more than a matter of months after diagnosis.

Asbestos related diseases are considered by some as from a time gone by: not as relevant in this new post-industrial era as they once were. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cases of asbestos related diseases have yet to peak in Scotland and many estimate that that peak will happen some time in the next 10 years. Furthermore, a danger continues to exist from exposure. Although it is not being used in the construction of buildings and engineering projects any longer in the UK, it can still be found in buildings and manufactured products that were built before the full effects of exposure to asbestos was known.

Worryingly, despite significant resources being invested by the Health and Safety Executive into campaigns highlighting the dangers of asbestos, over 88% of people working in industry are unaware that exposure can be fatal, and 74% have had no formal training in dealing with asbestos.

For all these reasons I believe that if we want to genuinely make Scotland a better place to live and work that we must establish and support a collaborative research network. This doesn’t need to be a physical building. A proposal last year by the All Party Group on Occupational Safety and Health at Westminster recommended the establishment of a National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases (NCARD) – based on an example from Australia. This was agreed by the then UK Government but unfortunately the new coalition has decided not to support it and have scrapped the plans. I also raised the importance of this proposal having support from the Scottish Government during a Members Debate in January of this year. Unfortunately this received a lukewarm response from the Scottish Government – probably driven by officials in the health department rather than Ministers.

We have the powers, we have the need and we have shown in the past that we have the political will to tackle difficult issues such as this. Yes, of course there would be financial considerations, but surely the insurance industry would support such a move both in policy and financial terms? If the prognosis for those suffering from an asbestos related disease was better and there was a chance of a cure surely we could encourage insurance companies to make the necessary investment to support such an initiative? I hope so, because asbestos is a persisting scourge on Scotland’s proud industrial heritage and one we must tackle now.

Prospecting for Goldie

Oct 4

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 17 Comments

There surely isn’t much remarkable about the Scottish Conservatives stating that they now have an open mind to forming a coalition Government with another of Scotland’s parties, what is remarkable that they ever closed their mind to the prospect in the first place.

The Conservatives can of course effect change from outside the Government, as they have done at the past few budgets and through committee work, but the real political impact for any nation is through Ministerial positions and setting the agenda. I accept it is unlikely that the Conservatives will find a coalition partner willing to do serious business with them, not so much because the Scottish Tories are toxic but rather because the SNP, Labour and Scottish Lib Dems would like to keep considering them that way.

I have noted in a previous post that the most likely alliance for the Scottish Conservatives is probably the SNP, though many disagreed. Put simply, were the numbers to fall a certain way, were Goldie to offer an independence referendum and were the Nationalists so thirsty for a plebiscite then I don’t see why it couldn’t happen. However, that’s speculation that hinges on a number of hitherto undecided factors so there is little point dwelling on it.

Furthermore, Goldie herself has said: “But if the constitutional issue could be parked and you ask ‘are there areas of common ground?’ The answer is yes.” which to me suggests there isn’t enough blue sky thinking from Scotland’s blue party. A deal can’t be done with the SNP without independence being part of the agreement. As for the Tories and Labour – a deal can’t be done. Simple as that.

Where Annabel Goldie has made a good decision in the here and now is to position herself as above the fray in terms of the back-and-forth, Punch and Judy debacle that we see most weeks in the Scottish Parliament. The Tories are marking themselves out as, for want of a better phrase, a third way.

Support for the top two parties at a UK level has decreased over the past few decades and perhaps the Scottish Tories are hoping to pick up any ‘anti-status quo’ vote that may be out there. We’ve had eight years of Labour and the Lib Dems and we’ve had four years of the SNP, perhaps a difficult-to-satisfy Scottish public may turn to the Tories in order to freshen things up.

Of course, I would suggest that if you were that way minded then you should turn to the Scottish Greens, not that I see many people struggling over who to support between the blues and the greens, of course.