Image from Bella Caledonia

One should never really believe political promises, but ‘vote no for more powers later’ has to be one of the worst. Especially from the mouth of someone making that promise only because he feels he ought.

Last week, while speaking in Edinburgh, David Cameron offered Scotland more powers, but only if independence was rejected.

“I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further”, he said. “And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.”

Offering voters what they might want through a different and delayed means of your own choosing strikes me as less political masterclass, and more desperate politician.  Nonetheless, Conservative-supporting facets of the media have applauded Cameron’s move.

Writing in The Guardian, Conservative Home editor Tim Montgomerie has followed
Cameron’s statement with a call for him to “seize the moment”.

“By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects. And through these changes – with the introduction of city mayors and greater localism – he can be the PM who replaces one of Europe’s most centralised states with a political architecture fit for the 21st century.”

I’m a big fan of devolution. I think the best place for power to be is as close to the people as possible. For me devolution and the debate around independence isn’t just about territory or a binary discussion between what powers reside and why in Westminster and Holyrood, but how powers – democratic and economic – extend down to councils and to communities, and how those powers are used.

Montgomerie has identified the ill – the moribund institutions that can dominate sections of English local democracy. The cure he proposes will be interesting to watch – the 12 new city mayors to be elected, as well as police commissioners, will hopefully revitalise local democracy in England. And there is always a case for councils and communities across all nations of the UK to enjoy greater localism.

But Cameron’s jam tomorrow promise for Scotland is a hurried attempt to claw back ground gained by Salmond and the SNP, a ‘shush now, behave, and we’ll give you a treat’ attempt at cajoling voters using a strategy that ceases being effective once someone’s older than about six. Cameron and today’s Conservatives have scant interest in devolution – Montgomerie in the same piece notes it was Salmond, and not Cameron, that “[chose] to put Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK at the top of the political agenda”.

Cameron’s intervention in the independence debate is a self-interested salvo, an attempt to adhere to the role of UK Prime Minister and retain the power it brings, a role that he feels he must play, rather than a great passion or driving ambition on his part.

Cameron and the Conservatives seem likewise only interested in localism and English devolution when it stands to benefit their own grasp on power. You can’t argue for reducing the number of seats in Westminster in order to make everyone’s votes more equal, when you are also switching to individual voter registration despite warnings that up to six million voters are currently missing from the electoral roll. For others like Eric Pickles, localism and cohesion are being confused with ill-thought out assimilation. And slashing local public services, from lights to libraries, doesn’t inspire hope that Cameron is really interested in standing up for what’s happening on the doorsteps of England.

Any intervention by Cameron into the independence debate with pledges and promises will be regarded with bemusement by the majority of the Scottish electorate. We expect his thoughtlessness and hashed attempts at making do when it comes to the devolution debate. But he risks more by only being half-hearted and damaging about changes to English democracy, especially when his own party are arguing for him to be otherwise.

First up, is the inimitable Kenneth Gibson, a repeat offender sadly.

Motion S4M-02041: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/02/2012
Scots of the Antarctic
That the Parliament recognises what it considers the remarkable incompetence of Labour ministers in the previous UK administration who, it has emerged, accidentally devolved some responsibility, including the ability to launch scientific research expeditions, over Britain’s 660,000 square mile Antarctic territory to the Scottish Parliament; believes that, in pursuit of a respect agenda, it would be wrong as a point of principle for the UK Government to seek to reserve these powers once more; understands that more research is conducted in Scotland than any other country relative to wealth per head of population, that Scotland has the highest concentration of universities in Europe, with Scottish institutions undertaking world-leading research, over half of which is rated as internationally excellent, that Scotland is also home to five of the world’s top 200 universities, while it ranks third in the world for the number of research publications published per head of population; considers, therefore, that the UK Government should not only cease in its attempts to have this responsibility reserved, but actively encourage Scottish involvement in planning and conducting scientific research and expeditions in the region; further considers that, due to Scottish scientific and educational excellence, the UK Government would also be wise to devolve some control over space exploration to the Scottish Parliament, and believes that, if the UK Government seriously wants to have full control over the Antarctic territory, it may wish to consider the issue as part of an agreement to return 15,000 square kilometres of Scottish waters, as agreed in the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which it considers were transferred unilaterally from Scottish to UK jurisdiction under the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 just weeks before the Scottish Parliament came into being and which was subsequently endorsed by unionist MSPs acting, it considers, as always, in London’s interest.
Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Bill Kidd, Mike MacKenzie, David Torrance, George Adam, Kevin Stewart, Dennis Robertson

I don’t fully follow how, in the one motion, Kenny can slag off Labour for “remarkable incompetence” in accidentally devolving the launching of scientific research expeditions to Holyrood while also claiming, “as a point of principle”, that those powers should remain with the Scottish Parliament. I can’t imagine that there are any Scottish-based expeditions out to Antarctica that are raring to go, irrespective of the long list of irrelevant accolades that Kenny has manage to shoehorn into this motion. Even if an expedition is due to get going, I can’t imagine that it’ll make a blind bit of difference as to whether the powers are held at Holyrood or Westminster.

Mentioning good things about Scottish universities does not a good motion make, and indeed is a clue as to what cracks are trying to be papered over.

Next on the list, and jockeying for WMOTW top spot this week, is Hugh Henry, a recent Scottish Politician of the Year so someone who should really know better.

Motion S4M-02004: Hugh Henry, Renfrewshire South, Scottish Labour,
Date Lodged: 10/02/2012
Linwood
That the Parliament regrets the comments reportedly made by SNP councillor David Berry describing Linwood as a “dead end”; considers that Linwood is a proud community, which has suffered from the effects of industrial decline; recognises and pays tribute to the many community organisations in the area, including the churches, community council, the Community Development Trust and the Elderly Forum, that are working hard to make Linwood a better place, and believes that an apology is due as a result of what it sees as this unwelcome slur.
Supported by: Neil Bibby, Neil Findlay

Any motion with the phrase “unwelcome slur” in it is bound to be a bit of no-good Punch and Judy that may be worthy of page 17 in a tabloid, but isn’t really welcome in the Scottish Pariament. I don’t know if Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick has an official equivalent of ‘take it outside lads’ but, if so, I hope that it is utilised.

Both motions are really aimed at journalists and rival councillors respectively, rather than the Scottish public, so here’s hoping that their next attempts are a better effort and don’t drive us up the Pole.

Indeed, you could say that, much like the Antarctic and Linwood itself, the only way is up.

That said, David Cameron’s speech today is, from the previews available, depressingly vacuous and ever so slightly patronising.

A couple of quotes from media outlets that have been leaked soundbites are as follows:

(Mail):
We are better off together. We’re stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe and unique influence with allies all over the world. We’re safer, because in an increasingly dangerous world we have the fourth-largest defence budget on the planet, superb armed forces and anti-terrorist and security capabilities that stretch across the globe and are feared by our enemies and admired by our friends.’

(Sky):
“I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.
To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation – it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out. Of course, there are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that’s not the point.
The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive. We are better off together. Why? Well, first of all, let’s be practical. Inside the United Kingdom, Scotland – just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland – is stronger, safer, richer and fairer.”

It is not uncommon for Tory leaders to liken policy debates to wars as they try to tap into the Old Blighty WW2 spirit that they hope still courses through our veins. Churchill was an expert at it and Margaret Thatcher used it to great effect in many a speech in the eighties. David Cameron is, not unsurprisingly given the context, trying to do so again here with his ‘our shared home is under threat’ rhetoric. Alex Salmond the Nazi? That didn’t work out so well for the last person who tried it.

One problem is that it is all too high-handed, too broad brush, when the only way to advance the debate is with detail, facts and figures. The line ‘head, heart and soul’ might have a pleasing cadence to it, and saying the debate in favour of the UK is “entirely positive” may in itself sound positive, but there is no substance there, nothing for Scots to get their teeth into and taste the evidence from.

When Ruth Davidson talks of ‘fantasy figures’ that the First Minister is using to boast that Scotland would be the sixth richest nation, the obvious challenge is to say that at least Salmond is using figures to back up his argument. If the truth is contrary to the SNP’s view of the future, where is the hard-headed evidence otherwise?

If Scotland becoming an independent country is a leap of faith and a step into the unknown, a challenge not denied by Nicola Sturgeon on Good Morning Scotland this morning, then we are as likely to be better off than worse off, safer than more at risk and fairer than ripped off.

Put another way, saying we are ‘stronger, safer, richer and fairer’ doesn’t make it so. I just hope the transcript of David Cameron’s speech today serves up more than his soundbites are promising.

Several times it’s been through the wringer of inquiry and report to being roundly ignored in the last decade –the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the 2006 Sir Hayden Phillips inquiry, and most recently Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The proposed reforms to party funding never secure parliamentary support, as they fail to reach agreement from all three main Westminster Parties.  The Phillips inquiry collapsed over deciding the best way to deal with Labour’s funding from trade unions, while Sir Christopher Kelly’s proposal, of £23m a year in state funding of political parties, met with disapproval from all corners of Westminster, reluctant to commit to such spending of taxpayer’s money during a period of austerity.

Last week Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for a revival of the behemoth, writing to Ed Miliband and David Cameron asking them each to nominate party representatives for three-party private talks, aiming to set out some form of political funding agreement by Easter.

According to The Guardian, this agreement would “cover individual and company donor limits, the treatment of union affiliates, spending caps at elections and the distribution of existing state funding between parties, currently estimated at £7m a year.”

Additional state funding has been ruled out from these discussions, and this means the agreement will not include much reduced donation limits – such caps, minus funding from the state, could entail bankruptcy for the parties.

Much reduced donation limits from individuals or an organisation is the most frequent sticking point for the Labour Party in these discussions. Heavily dependent on trade union affiliation fees for income, any moves which limit or alter how these are made threatens Labour’s continued existence, whether it’s severely capping the amount a union can donate or proposing that political levy-payers have to contract in, rather than opt-out, when joining.

So while ruling out additional state funding and thus much lower donor limits means Miliband is likely to be more sympathetic to joining Clegg’s talks, another worry about party funding could be looming for Labour – this time from within.

A quarter of motions to the GMB’s annual conference in June are debating the trade union’s future relationship with Labour. The GMB describes the actions of so many of its branches raising this issue as “unprecedented”.

Giving around £2 million each year to the party, the GMB is Labour’s third largest donor. Of its 600,000 members, around half are either employed by the public sector, or in private companies contracted to the public sector. Comments by the Labour leadership in January regarding public sector pay constraint have ignited the union members’ ire; particularly Ed Balls’ statement in a speech to the Fabian Society that he could not promise to reverse the coalition’s spending cuts if Labour were elected in 2015.

In a statement on Tuesday, the GMB’s executive noted the concerns of its membership and said:

“The executive expressed concern and disappointment with recent statements made by senior party officials and registered their growing frustration at the lack of a cohesive policy to protect working people from the ravages of the Tory-led coalition Government.”

Being attacked by union activists while trying to woo middle-Britain back to Labour may not feel like being in ‘Red Ed’ Miliband’s best interests for positioning himself and his party to win the next election, but only a fool would dismiss these calls by the GMB’s activists.

Labour can’t try and defend the trade union link and its generous funding on one hand, while that crucial link and all its cash is slipping away from the other. Miliband is going to have to choose exactly how he wants his party to have a future; just have to wait and see if it will be a well funded one, with committed union activists campaigning on the ground, rather than skint attempts at triangulation with the Daily Mail reading masses.

It would take the most generous of hearts from rival clubs to feel sorry for the club’s plight. Taking the lion’s share of tv money, winning qualification to lucrative European competitions year after year and often robbing Scotland’s other teams of their best talent only to leave them rotting in the reserves. Goodbye and good riddance?

Well, that is a bit harsh.

Scottish football is worse off without a strong Rangers Football Club being a part of it. The club has brought young talent to the fore, combined with world class stars being brought in from afar (Laudrup, Caniggia, Amoruso).

A silver lining from all of this is that a new Rangers could emerge from the ashes that has less ambition but more local players making up its squad. Airdrie United was back up and running soon after liquidation thanks to a buyout of Clydebank so there’s no reason why something similar can’t happen down Govan way. Every silver lining has a cloud of course and, at the end of day, the club has diddled the public out of tens of millions of pounds for some as yet unknown reason.

A finger of blame has to be pointed in the direction of Sir David Murray. A tax bill of ~£50m doesn’t accrue overnight and the finances surely can’t have been in order during Rangers’ Champions League heyday of Nine in a Row. A football club is a business before it is a sports team and no club is too big to fail. Sir David wouldn’t be the first knighted Scot to have taken a big company and ran it into the ground before jumping ship of course.

So what next?

Well here’s an idea out of left wing – Celtic could bail out Rangers and ensure their rival’s survival.

Granted, Celtic only made a £180k profit this financial year which is a far cry from the £50m that HMR&C we are due but they could contribute to a repayment schedule and, together with Rangers, make giant strides to making serious progress in the fight against sectarianism in Scotland. Rangers fan would have to find a grudging gratitude and Celtic fans would tap a hidden reservoir of sympathy for their rivals during their plight. After all, there but for the grace of Fergus McCann, go the Bhoys.

It would be nice if there was a coming together, and Scottish football would benefit from Rangers keeping going, but at the end of the day this news has to be taken in context.

This is a club in a footballing world that generally has fewer and fewer redeeming features as the years go by. Rangers fans looking to other sports to direct their passions might, despite what I’ve written above, be the best that can be hoped for from this sorry tale but, for now, and as a fairweather Celtic fan, I have to restrain my smirk and hope that Rangers gets back to where it belongs, second placed in the SPL season after season.

Photo by J D Mack

Last week the Monetary Policy Committee decided to go ahead with another £50 billion round of quantitative easing in which the central bank buys gilts (UK government debt) on the secondary market (i.e. it buys bonds from private holders on the secondary market rather than buying it directly from the government. That’s the theoretical difference which differentiates us from Zimbabwe). That makes a total of £325 billion of new money floating about in the economy.

It’s worth, at this point, briefly exploring exactly what money is these days. There are two measures that the UK normally uses, narrow money supply (M0) and broad money supply (M4). The first, M0, is the total of the physical notes and coins in your pocket and in the tills and safes of companies as well as the deposits from retail banks held by the Bank of England. The second, M4, is the notes and coins held by people and firms other than banks (including the BoE), the total sum of private bank deposits and certificates of deposit.

Allowing for a substantial difference between M0 and M4 is the essential point of having a fiat currency rather than being bound to something like the gold standard. Quantitative easing, as implemented in the UK, expands the money supply by increasing demand for the bonds deposited with the BoE in M0 thus reducing their price and therefore the relative cost of cash to retail banks.

Which they’ve basically then sat on.

The BBC’s excellent Money Box had a section on this where they challenged the way that QE is implemented and questioned why, if the ostensible purpose is to stimulate demand, peoples bank accounts aren’t just incremented by about a £1000 each. Answer from the Institute of Directors representative came there none.

It’d be bloody brilliant. If we’re going to actually make up £50bn in new money that didn’t exist before, which is literally what is happening, why shouldn’t everyone get a cheque in the post? We could make it taxable so the policy would be progressive and still be sanatised so we weren’t directly printing money for government spending which is the theoretical reason countries get in trouble. It’s far more likely that people would spend it directly (or reduce their overall debt) which helps keep the economy going, businesses from going under and people in work.

photo by comedy_nose

A guest today from Dr Paul Cairney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Head of Department of Politics and International Relations at Aberdeen University.

Say what you like about Lord Ashcroft, but he gets things done with money. While most of us might have been muttering under our breaths about the leading nature of the SNP Government’s proposed independence referendum question, Ashcroft just spent some of his money trying to show how leading it was. His comparison of three questions shows that the wording of the question does seem to have an effect on responses. While 41% agreed that ‘Scotland should be an independent country’ when merely asked to agree, 39% agree when invited to agree or disagree. That figure reduces further to 33% pro-independence when people were asked ‘Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?’ (oddly, there were no ‘undecideds’ in these polls, so the remaining respondents go down as ‘no’ votes). We have always known that there would be this kind of effect. In fact, it was more marked when the first SNP Government produced the more convoluted question ‘I agree [I do not agree] that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state’. This wording is one of the few to produce a plurality in favour, presumably because many people will feel that they are not yet being asked to choose (although the latest poll takes us from a slim lead for ‘agree’ back to a slim lead for ‘disagree’). In most other cases, and at most other times, a different wording generally produces a lead for the ‘no’ vote (see the 14-plus different ways to ask the question in chapter 7 here; compare the survey approach with Susan Condor’s work (on English attitudes to change in Scotland), which just asks people what they think – it suggests that they care much less about these issues than forced choice surveys suggest).

The usual conclusion is that we should look at longer term trends, to see if the same question shows more or less support for constitutional change over time. For example, support for independence has, for decades, been about one-third to two-fifths when people are given the option of choosing to retain or extend devolution instead. It may fluctuate, and that fluctuation may be a good story for the papers, but the trends are fairly clear. This is not the argument I want to pursue here. Rather, I think we should focus more on the potential for fluctuation. The referendum will be held on a particular day in a particular context after a particular campaign. Therefore, while the trends will give us a broad idea of public attitudes, they will not tell us what will happen if we witness a ‘perfect storm’ of events that produces a particular attitude on a particular day. I am not suggesting that people will radically reverse their views at a moment’s notice. Rather, I am suggesting one or more of four things. First, some people will be torn between the options and, if not given the comfort of further devolution as a choice, will not know what to do. Second, some people will have a clear idea of what they want, but without doing much soul searching to come to that conclusion. Third, some people will base their decision on a very small amount of information. Fourth, some people will get that information from biased sources and might see things differently if subject to a competing view. Overall, if many people are unsure, or their certainty is based on limited and biased information, it may be possible for a strong campaign – combined with key events – to change people’s minds for a little while. The best example for me so far was the Conservative Government gambit on giving permission to hold the referendum in 18 months. This sort of nonsense could produce all sorts of emotional reactions in the most calculating or ambivalent people.

I want to give this issue more thought than Lord Ashcroft, but I have less money. So, with my colleagues in psychology and physics at Aberdeen, I am developing an online project that probes people’s views about independence and examines how likely it is that those views will change when they are presented with new (or newly framed and sourced) arguments. We will gauge people’s existing knowledge and searches for information, then present them with the chance to agree or disagree with new arguments as presented by different people (on the assumption that they will react differently to arguments presented by, say, Alex Salmond or George Osborne). I need your help. I have a decent idea of the key arguments made about independence so far, and can do a trawl of the papers to make sure. However, I am sure that I have not heard them all. Can you think of pro- or anti- devolution arguments that would not fit into these broad categories (for example, I am not sure where to place the idea that the SNP’s image of governing competence will/ will not affect support for independence)? Or, can you think of some unusual examples in each category?

Economic – e.g. an independent Scotland could not have bailed out the RBS/ the Scottish Government would have avoided the catastrophe; an independent Scottish Government can tailor taxes and growth strategies to Scotland; businesses are happy/ will leave in droves; Scots will be better/ worse off in an independent Scotland

Economic deficits and North Sea Oil – Scotland relies on UK subsidies; the UK relies on Scottish oil

The State – Scotland will be a high tax, high spending country; the Scottish Government will reduce taxes to promote growth

European Union – someone will veto Scotland’s EU membership; we can decide whether or not we want to join; we will have to negotiate our entry or exit; we will have a larger or smaller voice in the EU

The Euro – we will have to join it; we can keep the pound until we choose to join it

Defence – will radically change/ not change Scotland’s role regarding the armed forces and nuclear question; Scotland will lose soldiers and defence contracts

Scotland and the UK – we will have to rebuild Hadrian’s wall and present passports at the border; key relationships will not change

Social attitudes – more Scottish than British? Devolution as a compromise between Scottishness and Britishness? People want/ do not want independence or more powers

History – Scotland as a stateless nation which demands self-government; the UK as a stronger, united country

Constitutional Issues – independence will solve the ‘English question’; the English should have their say; a referendum in Scotland has no legal authority; Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state

International affairs – we will have a small international voice; we will have to recruit a new generation of diplomats

]]> http://www.betternation.org/2012/02/floating-voters-or-flighty-voters/feed/ 15 http://www.betternation.org/2012/02/motions-of-the-week-its-good-to-talk-but-better-to-do/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=motions-of-the-week-its-good-to-talk-but-better-to-do http://www.betternation.org/2012/02/motions-of-the-week-its-good-to-talk-but-better-to-do/#comments Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:35:22 +0000 Jeff http://www.betternation.org/?p=1639 This week’s Motion of the Week is a two-parter and is a case of the good and the bad, the do-ers vs the talkers.

First up is Sarah Boyack, celebrating the excellent Remade in Edinburgh project:

Motion S4M-01967: Sarah Boyack, Lothian, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 07/02/2012
Remade in Edinburgh
That the Parliament welcomes the work of the Remade in Edinburgh project; understands that the project provides weekly drop-in sessions that give people new skills to repair and reuse items such as clothes and computers; further notes that the project promotes a zero-waste agenda as an alternative to a culture of disposable items by diverting household items from landfill; supports the project’s wider plan to create a reuse and repair centre in central Edinburgh, which, it understands, would house a series of social enterprises to repair and reuse a range of household items; notes that a similar project in Brixton was gifted disused garage space by the local authority; urges the City of Edinburgh Council to provide similar support to create local jobs and training opportunities in reuse and repair, and wishes the project well in continuing to expand its offering to the people of Edinburgh.

Supported by: Jackie Baillie, Neil Findlay, John Pentland, Anne McTaggart, Patricia Ferguson, Iain Gray, Mike MacKenzie, Sandra White, Margaret Burgess, James Kelly, Colin Beattie, Neil Bibby, Hugh Henry, Jamie Hepburn, David Torrance, Elaine Murray

A group of people have come together to form a project that combines recycling and sustainability with job creation and boosting Edinburgh’s economy. A faultless motion focussed on a faultless effort.

We are moving away from the concept of buying products that are built to last. If a mobile phone goes beyond your two year contract then you are considered lucky and if you haven’t upgraded your TV to blue-ray, HD, built-in-freeview then you’re behind the curve. Inflating that GDP up to the supposedly sustainable 2-3% seems like a fools errand to me when we can just keep a hold of the assets that still have a value to them rather than continue the accelerating trend of buy, briefly use, throw out.

So good on Remade; proactive positivity.

And then we have the talkers…

Motion S4M-01975: Neil Findlay, Lothian, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 07/02/2012
West Lothian College Stakeholders’ Meeting
That the Parliament congratulates West Lothian College on hosting what it considers a successful meeting of 70 or so concerned stakeholders, including students, staff, management, trade unions, business leaders and some locally elected representatives, at the college on 6 February 2012; commends West Lothian Trades Council for prompting the meeting; shares the concerns of West Lothian Trades Council, in particular its concern at funding cuts across the further education sector; considers that it was the unanimous feeling of the attendees that West Lothian College should be allowed to stand as a region on its own, and notes the concerns expressed that changes to college structures and delivery models within the regionalisation process will be a hollow process should West Lothian College, and indeed, other colleges, have their capability and capacity reduced as a consequence of significant decreases in their funding.

Supported by: Mary Fee, Drew Smith, Jackie Baillie, Anne McTaggart, Hugh Henry, Patricia Ferguson

What Neil seems to be saying here is – ‘Hooray, we had a meeting!’. Well bully for you son.

Don’t get me wrong, I get that college funding is important and I get that training people is the next best thing to employing them in many situations but an entire parliamentary motion just because 70 people sat down and had a chat? I think MSPs should be patting themselves on the back for a little more than that.

(Image by Lars Plougmann)

The issue of women in the boardroom, one of the threads of the never-ending public conversation about women, work, and income, has come to the fore of late. Placed firmly on the agenda by the Davies report, it is the topic of a flurry of conferences, meetings, seminars and salons, scheduled to coincide with International Women’s Day on March 8. It is also, along with women’s entrepreneurship, one of the topics at the Northern Future Forum in Stockholm, at which David Cameron has provoked some disquiet by appearing to suggest that he would not rule out quotas for women in the boardroom, should the UK business community not be able to increase women’s representation “by other means”.

Downing Street has subsequently walked this back, but Mr Cameron may be overtaken by events. The European Commission has a review planned next month, which will look at the impact of voluntary approaches to appointing more women into non-executive directorships, including under its own ‘Women on the Board Pledge for Europe’. It has declared its intent to impose quotas if it finds that progress has stalled or reversed, and the European Parliament has signalled its own receptiveness to this in the form of a non-binding resolution on Women and Business Leadership.

Women do have something to bring to the boardroom. Catalyst, pre-eminent researchers of women and business, has found a clear link between board-level gender diversity and a company’s financial performance. Examples abound of companies, like Nike, who have parlayed the knowledge of female executives into profitable new markets and products targeted at women mindful of the fact that women now make 80 per cent of consumer purchases in the developed world.

The foregrounding of the issue of women in the executive suite, though, does rest on the idea that it is possible to dismantle the oak-panelled ceiling without considering what happens underneath it. Many of the business representatives responding to Mr Cameron’s muted endorsement for quotas have spoken of the boardroom as the apogee of a ‘meritocracy’. Although the dearth of women around the table is not because women lack talent, ambition, or knowledge, the business spokespeople are right in that the boardroom reflects, and also inspires, what happens outside its doors. Focusing on access to non-executive and executive directorships runs the risk of removing the work experience of the most senior woman from its context.

Women have different working lives to men, principally because our domestic lives are so different. The pay gap exists, in part, because of the additional responsibility we bear for childcare and other reproductive labour. It also reflects the fact that we find ourselves clustered into different types of work, chiefly those that pay the least, and that discrimination lingers on in pay systems long after legislation was enacted to remove it.

The roots of the attitudes that shape our working lives are deep. From an early age, children have perceptions about what types of work, and what types of attributes align with being male and female. These attitudes can be traced through to those of the university admissions staff member, the manager dividing the bonus pot, the executive recruiter. Some of this reductive thinking even finds its way into the programmes that attempt to challenge sexism in the City. Women are deficient, some of the narratives go, and must cast aside self-deprecation and push themselves forward, be more self-confident, become tougher negotiators. Even the supposed compliments are laden with stereotypes: women would not have allowed the banking crisis, because they are so risk-averse.

Catalyst have found evidence that companies with a larger proportion of female board members tend to see increases in the number of women serving as senior executives, or in promoted posts. It seems that appointing women as non-executive directors sends a signal to a company’s workforce that it rewards women’s aspirations. Most people, regardless of gender, will not end up serving as a director of a FTSE 100 company, but this is one of the reasons why we should care who does.

The leaders of our corporations shape society in a way that is becoming more transparent in our current economic circumstances, but it is not only the most senior women who have their aspirations stifled, and their talents underutilised and undervalued. Among other things, and against a backdrop of redundancies and punitive welfare reform, we need to work out how to fund a sustainable childcare system, create enough part-time roles to meet demand, and encourage a more even division of domestic labour. Enabling women to take part in the economic life of the nation means turning our collective will to resolving a number of wicked problems; gender parity in the boardroom is only one piece of the jigsaw.

Still, to be fair to John Swinney he has been trying to get cross party support and has been aided in this by the additional hundred million or so of Barnett consequentials, two thirds of which is so far unallocated, which has given him a bit of elbow room.

It’s less likely to be huge amounts of largesse and more that some areas will be cut less far – colleges being the current high profile example all the opposition parties are concentrating on. They’d had their funding cut some seventy million (while universities had their funding increased by around twice that) so it’s unlikely that we’ll see that entirely reversed but I’d imagine the cut to student support and some of the teaching grant cuts reversed.

Other than that? Bit more speculative. Some specific local government programs might get a bit as there’s some elections coming up. Housing’s already had some and might get some more, which would be good.

Given nobody has, AFAIK, submitted any amendments this time round what would you change? Comments please and remember – your fantasy budget amendment has to balance.

(Angus Loughran isn’t dead)