Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

“Scottish solutions for Scottish problems”

Aug 3

Posted by Malc in Housekeeping | 17 Comments

I wonder what you thought when you saw the title above… suspected my of being incredibly inward-looking, perhaps stretching to a comparison with Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers”?  It could be the title of a rather controversial post, I will grant you… and, I guess, is something to ponder.

But – for the moment – its nothing like that.  I’m after a favour.  Or rather, someone else is.

Dr Paul Cairney of the University of Aberdeen is in the midst of drafting a book which is likely to be of interest to readers of this blog.  It is titled “The Scottish Political System Since Devolution: From New Politics to the New Scottish Government”.  So really, all the stuff we talk about here – but probably (definitely!) written in a more comprehensible manner, and certainly better researched than our stuff.

Anyway, the phrase in the title of this post:  “Scottish solutions for Scottish problems”.  Dr Cairney is looking for the origin of it.  Who said it first, and in what context?  Does anyone know?

I couldn’t help, but figured someone here might be able to.  If so, let us know in the comments.  Thanks!

What Future for Scotland? – Why devolution has disappointed

Aug 2

Posted by Jeff in Ideology | 16 Comments

Back in the Stone Age of Scottish Devolution, 2001, a small book was published by the Policy Institute called ‘What future for Scotland?’. The book consisted of “eight leading writers and commentators providing a critical analysis and radical suggestions for reform”.

Ten years have passed but how relevant are these same ideas from a decade ago? Have they already been incorporated, are they urgently needed or have events resulted in these proposals no longer being necessary? They say that those who forget the lessons of the past are forced to repeat them, so, I decided (in part due to the dearth of bloggable subjects for the Better Nation team at the current time) to take each in turn over the next week or two and flesh them out into a blog post. So I hope this goes well because there’ll be seven more of them coming soon.

The first chapter in this book is rather negatively entitled ‘Why devolution has disappointed’ and was written by Katie Grant (from what I can establish, a journalist and author).

The executive summary to this chapter states: Devolution may, arguably, have empowered the Scottish people in parochial terms but it has, without doubt, terminally weakened the national and international standing of the country itself. Since the 1999 Scottish elections, Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table has diminished to little more than a squeak. In bargaining terms the position of Secretary of State for Scotland has been sidelined without the position of First Minister filling the vacuum.

In making her point that the Scottish Parliament was surplus to requirements, Katie quoted the foreign correspondent of the Swedish broadsheet newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Lars Ryding, who said “I think Swedes would opt for interesting rather than important when it comes to devolution. It reminds people that there are several national identities under the Great Britain umbrella. In that sense, devolution has definitely added to Scotland’s profile here. It will never, however, be a big issue with the Swedish media but it has whetted the interest in those, quite many Swedes, who pay some kind of attention to the UK.’

Now, I don’t think the point of devolution was ever to fill column inches in European newsrooms and nor was it necessarily to raise Scotland’s standing in the wider world. I find it particularly ironic that a Swede provided the above quote as it was 1999 no less that devolution came to Sweden, with SkÃ¥ne (pop: 1.3m) opening its Regional Assembly. I can’t remember that making the front page of the Daily Record or Scotsman back then but someone in that country must have deemed it a good idea for local people to decide on issues like transport and healthcare locally nonetheless.

Looking within Scotland, I find Katie’s points much more persuasive. Bemoaning the £242m spent on “parliamentary administration” and the £257m on “electronic service delivery”, Katie wonders quite reasonably if that money might actually be better spent elsewhere. The argument the other way that “devolution brings benefits that far outweigh (this) expenditure” is mooted but how can we know that the public’s expectations are being met and value for money is being realised.

This is something that I have wondered myself recently. At a stroke we could do away with a whole tranche of political activity that sits between MP and councillor and, well, would we really miss it? Even all the ancillary bodies do seem to be surplus to requirements. Do we need to have a Scottish Parliament that pays money to ASH Scotland that only exists to help us stop smoking? I’m sure there are plentiful other examples and, at the end of the day, what have any of your many MSPs (list or constituency) actually done for you that wouldn’t have been achieved without Holyrood in place? Is it worth all that money sloshing its way out of the country’s coffers for 12 years? (I would say yes, but only just)

Katie took this notion and, having noted that there was not a clamour for the closure of Holyrood back in 1999, effectively challenged the Scottish Parliament to meet the public’s expectations – “To be deemed a success, devolution needs to be seen as crucial to turning Scotland into a place both financially and socially dynamic”.

I would personally say that that has happened. Katie mentioned that the only thing going for Scotland is tourism and to an extent that does still remain but, despite a geographical disadvantage, we in Scotland do seem to hold our own against European countries in terms of growth and employment and, furthermore, the opportunity that renewables has offered has been taken with both hands by the Scottish Government when the UK Government may well have been more sluggish and more butterfingers about the potential that our wind, waves and tidal provide.

Katie’s suggestion that the Minister for Enterprise should be “devolution’s most important post” in order to “wean Scots away from the diet of whinge and welfare” still rings true even now in 2011, and under a Government with different party colours from 2001, but that is a decades old problem that would exist with or without devolution, and devolution surely provides a better model for moving on and getting Scotland working again simply through a Government being closer to the root of the problem.

Katie’s open wondering as to where the modern equivalent of the Tay and Forth Bridge will emanate from has an obvious answer in the new Forth Road Crossing, a less obvious answer in the largest onshore windfarm in Europe and largest tidal project in the world and even a silly answer in the Edinburgh trams adventure. Projects and investments that arguably wouldn’t have happened without a Scottish Parliament.

It perhaps says a lot about how much I disagree with this article that the rare plaudit that Katie gives the then Scottish Executive is something that I can’t accept: “The school rebuilding programme, achieved through the controversial PFI formula, has been a welcome and tangible sign of Executive action.” “Labour MSP wobbles over PFI vanished as soon as they realised that building sites with “Scottish Executive” written all over them were worth a dozen consultation papers.”

The exorbitant cost of these PFI contracts are well-documented and it was sheer folly to believe that the public could get so much for supposedly so little and, of course, we shall be paying interest on those shiny schools and hospitals for decades to come. A controversial suggestion that winning votes was a deal-breaker is not somethin that I would suggest but it’s hardly an edifying defence of a spending decision if you ask me.

Katie goes on to bemoan “the lack of a role for the Secretary of State for Scotland”, a concern that has certainly continued up to 2011. I may have complimented Jim Murphy personally and professionally in my previous post but the role that he held at the tail end of the last Labour Government was surplus to requirements, through little fault of his own. The truth is Scotland is over-represented and it doesn’t need both devolution and a distinct Cabinet role. How Michael Moore fills his time is beyond me. Furthermore, why Scotland deserves such representation and, say, Cornwall or Yorkshire doesn’t has always seemed a little mystifying.

This diminished role for the Scotland Office is not a failure of devolution, quite the contrary. The unrivalled profile and prestige that the FM position now carries (possibly only mostly due to the current incumbent) is to Scotland and devolution’s benefit and if a UK Government feels it has to ‘man mark’ the First Minister then so be it. The “bargaining power” that Katie craved now exists through a First Minister that has publicly stood Scotland’s ground arguably more effectively than a Sec of State would have behind closed doors. 

Even the specific areas that Katie pinpointed as being “disappointments” have not been borne out one decade on, the “haemhorraging away of jobs” doesn’t stack up against Scotland’s robust employment figures, the “fast collapsing”, “financially insupportable” free care for the elderly continues on and Scotland’s student fees strategy is proving quite the opposite of “restricting” with fees kept at bay. There is no better endorsement of the Scottish Government and the optimism that Scotland holds than a returning of that Government with a majority to go further than it has before.

So, has devolution disappointed? In the round the answer would have to be no. If devolution is indeed a process then that process is still unfolding and complete success, be it Scotland’s standing in Europe, full independence or a mature relationship with the rest of the UK, is a time that is not yet with us, but there is a greater sense that that moment is at hand than there was in 2001 and, for that reason, I have to conclude that the title of Katie’s article is not only incorrect but no longer as relevant as it was when written.

Scottish Labour – Trying to pull a rabbit from an empty hat

Jul 31

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 85 Comments

The Scotland on Sunday, presumably with little else to talk about, has picked up the story of who will be the next Labour leader with the news that Johann Lamont may be a caretaker leader for the next year as Scottish Labour figures out what the best way ahead is and as Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack complete their review of the party in light of their trouncing back in May.

Opting for a caretaker leader is probably a decent move. The next Holyrood election is light years away and if it is judged that a new leader won’t have that much of an impact on council elections, then it is best to take the time and get the right person in for the long term. The problem that Labour faces in selecting a new leader though, whether it’s today or next year, is laid bare when the bookies’ favourite, Jackie Baillie, has effectively ruled herself out of the job.

Speaking with URTV (it’s a new one on me aswell), Jackie said: “I love this constituency too much to even be contemplating something like that”. Now, of course, this could be a simple bit of humble misdirection which is hardly a rarity in leadership elections but, if taken at her word, Ms Baillie is not interested.

Starting to move down the bookies’ order, you then have:
Ken MacIntosh (5/4 but broke many bridges with recent tv appearances suggesting more of the same Mr Angry type opposition),
Richard Baker (9/1 but arguably far too inexperienced and ‘shouty’ for the role),
John Park (10/1 but doesn’t seem interested),
Johann Lamont (12/1 but hardly an intellectual powerhouse),
Malcolm Chisholm (16/1 but has resigned three times recently and is short of allies in the group),
Hugh Henry (25/1, surprisingly long odds so I can only assume he isn’t interested)

So a bit of a pickle for Labour as it’s not so much that they don’t have a leading contender that they don’t have a viable contender. Indeed, for me, the only person to land a glove on the SNP Government in the few short months since the election is new MSP Kezia Dugdale. Kezia’s campaign to ensure interns get paid a proper salary and that employers meet the National Minimum Wage of £7.15 an hour culminated in attention-grabbing articles stating that the Scottish Government itself is funding bodies with almost 1,000 people paid below this level.

Now, does this mean that Kez should be a contender for leader? No, probably not, we don’t ‘opposition by FOI request’ for a start, but it does underline and indeed undermine the weak challenge from other MSPs in the Labour group.

So what is to be done? Well, with politics now so often focussing on personalities rather than policies the obvious answer is to select someone who is already recognisable, trusted and liked. For me, that means that Scottish Labour needs to tear up whatever structures it has in place and create a looser arrangement whereby Jim Murphy MP can lead Scottish Labour from Westminster and still be effectively in charge of the Labour group in Holyrood.

Many are calling for Scottish Labour to have a stronger Saltire emblazoned on its side and arguably an MP from London leading it does not do that but, on the flip side, this is a great indirect argument in favour of the union. Scottish Labour MSPs working with Scottish MPs in London for the betterment of Scotland within the UK has a dual purpose of improving Labour’s standing with the Scottish electorate and putting in place a strong, positive narrative for the independence referendum campaign.

Furthermore, Jim Murphy has been an excellent critic of the SNP and has seemingly had an unswerving (not to mention unnerving) ability to pick the holes in the Nats’ plans that will bring the public with him. Add to that the fact that he is the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence (chief opponent to Liam Fox), a position that no member of the SNP can reach, and you have a very powerful argument for having Jim at the top of the tree.

The main problem that I would envisage this leaving for the SNP is that it would be being attacked on many fronts. Ed Miliband can provide opposition as UK Labour leader, Jim Murphy would provide opposition as Scottish Labour leader and a LOLITSP (Ken MacIntosh, say) would provide opposition from within Holyrood. Alex Salmond is a formidable politician but he’d be getting attacked on three fronts from his main rivals and, given how long he has been in power, keeping them at bay would be much harder than it has been before, particularly once the cuts begin to bite and Ed, Jim and Ken have such easy lines of criticism available to them.

Scottish Labour may be in the doldrums right now but if it thinks outside the Holyrood box, a bit of red sky thinking perhaps, a brighter new dawn may well await.

(Update – And yes, that does mean we could call Labour’s leadership ‘Jedward’ going forward!)

Betting your bottom dollar on a better tomorrow

Jul 28

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 12 Comments

Cyril Northcote Parkinson’s Law from back in 1955 states that work expands to fill the time available and nowhere has this Law been more noticeable than in the US these past few weeks and months. The lawmakers have known for some time that their debt ceiling of a dizzying £14.3trn would have to increase to ensure default is avoided on August 2nd (rumoured to be closer to August 10th in some quarters) but, here we are, days to go and Republicans aren’t returning the President’s phone calls, Democrats are squeezing in last minute amendments and there’s £350bn gaps being found in the proposed solutions. The hard work clearly didn’t get done soon enough and Parkinson’s 56 year old dictum strikes again.

So the great American dream is something of a nightmare right now but how can you enforce tax increases on a flabby country that largely aspires to be rich in the future and is a few falafel sandwiches short of a Socialist picnic? The creaking structures of a nation long past its best are coming apart and the refrain that no entity is too big to fail may well be getting put to the ultimate test sooner rather than later. My personal preference is that economic disaster can be stalled long enough, while looming real enough, for a democratic and political consensus to come through at the ballot box agreeing to tax the rich, fix social welfare, move away from oil and lead towards a more sustainable future under the stewardship of Barack Obama, all the while maintaining the broadly beneficial global might that the US of A has historically enjoyed (giant foam fingers optional).

The irony is, this could have been Europe’s moment right here to supplant the US as a leading superpower if it didn’t have its own problems going on right now with Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal etc falling like dominoes. We Scots are regularly told that we are stronger together and weaker apart but that European strength does not seem to be in abundance right now and nor does there seem to be the enthusiasm from our current member state to drive that strength in numbers and economies of scale forwards. This is a shame. Greater European integration brings progress quicker for greater numbers and for all that the Euro is facing touch problems right now, Britain would still be better off inside it than out. Growth figures of 0.2% and an exchange rate that is weaker against the troubled Euro today than it was a year ago do not give much confidence in the shaky, stuttering Sterling. Yes, having one’s own currency provides a necessary agility when times are tough and what Ireland and Greece would give to go back to punts and drachmas we all know, but refusing to trade with most of the rest of the Continent in their shared currency because you like the Queen on your coins and notes is an odd decision. We shall remain the Continent’s distant cousin while we remain so pointedly on the outside, at our choosing.

The most worrying aspect of the European and American troubles and the impact on the UK are the yo-yoing share prices, primarily in the banking sector. Someone, somewhere is creaming large profits from these share prices by selling at the peaks and buying at the troughs and you can be sure that it isn’t Mr and Mrs MacShoogle down the road that are making these gains. There are investment banks and equity houses that are straddling the globe right now, unable to believe their luck at the prolonged bout of opportunities for speculation and arbitration that a fluctuating stock market provides.

What does it all mean? For me, it all means that inheritance tax has to increase drastically. I’m talking punitive levels that ensure that individuals make their own luck in this world, as it should be. The current capitalist system is unlikely to change but there exists a structural imbalance that rules that, if you are born into the right family or get into the right fast-track career stream at JP Morgan, you will enjoy a life of luxury that will make your eyes pop and that wealth will stay with you, stay with your children and stay with your children’s children and beyond unless a colossal error is made somewhere down the lineage. It’s a rot that has set in America, a rot that has set in the UK and is creeping all over the new world as wealth spreads across an elite few.

Global economics is all about supply and demand and if the supply is being hoarded by the few, is compounded by taking advantage of disarray for the many and the demand is squeezed by food shortages, energy uncertainty and the need to print more money, something is not right. Inheritance tax is one of the largest levers available to flatten out the inequality that we see grow each day before our very eyes and in all corners of the world and, regardless of whether the US defaults or not over the next week or so, that lever needs to be pulled.

Or we can stick with Parkinson’s Law and put the problem off for another day, week, month, year,…..

No half measures apparently allowed

Jul 27

Posted by James in Constitution, Culture | 9 Comments

To continue the metaphor.A classic July debate over identity has flourished on the blogs – starting with Kenny Farquharson‘s pop-based analysis of the emotional arguments for Britain, then continuing here with Pete Wishart‘s “British-identifying Scottish Nationalist” post which attracted a bit of MSM attention, including Newsnicht last night. Responses included David Torrance‘s rebuttal that Scottishness and Britishness are the same sort of thing, also here, then Lallands Peat Worrier thoughtfully identified the parallels between the positions Kenny and Pete set out. Stuart Winton also piled in with his analysis this morning of the debate’s implications for the actual constitutional question.

These are a very diverse set of views, if uniformly pretty blokey – and apologies for extending that last aspect. In order, they are: a look at an emotional fondness for Britain as one basis for remaining within it, a reclamation of British as a term to retain for the post-independence social union, a separation of burgeoning Scottish identity from a desire for independence, a consideration of problems with the general argument that national identity should drive state boundaries, and an effort to bring the debate back to the question of how it will affect a independence referendum. Any authors above who think I’ve misrepresented them, please let me know.

They all have one thing in common, though, a key assumption which is both mistaken and which suits the SNP. Consider (h/t Malc) the Moreno Scale used to assess attitudes (pdf, see p5-6), which in the Scottish instance, asks people which best describes them, without even, oddly, an “Other” option:

Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
a) Scottish not British
b) More Scottish than British
c) Equally Scottish and British
d) More British than Scottish
e) British not Scottish

The journalists and bloggers above – again, apologies if I’m misrepresenting anyone – assume, like Moreno, that everyone has an equally strong sense of national identity. Imagine it like a cocktail glass which is equally full for everyone, just composed of a different mixture of elements or, in some cases, a straight draught of a single drink.

You can have a glass full of Scottishness, or one full of Britishness, or perhaps an equal mix of the two. You might make space for a dash of Europeanism (although none of the posts above consider that element), or perhaps for a regional identity – try telling a Shetlander that there’s no local identity there. Would Margo perhaps go for a mix of Scottishness and Edinburghness? You might even have a splash or more of actual Englishness, or a shot of Welsh in there. You might also, to mix the metaphors thoroughly, like some bhangra with your bagpipes. But the glass is the same size for everyone, the underlying argument goes, and everyone’s glass must as a matter of fact be equally full of something.

Mine isn’t.

A massive chunk of the issues I think are most important are either global (loss of biodiversity, climate change, resource depletion, peace and war, trade injustice and exploitative economics) or certainly partly international (poverty, threats to civil liberties etc).

I do feel more Scottish than European, and more European than British, but more global than all of those, pompous as that may sound. But largely I don’t think about it, and largely I don’t care about it. I’m sure I’m not alone.

National identity really doesn’t drive me at all, except for the odd 90 minutes. There’s very little of any sort in my glass. Identity questions are certainly entirely unrelated to my reasons for getting involved in politics. The fact that I feel more Scottish than British doesn’t even seem related to my support for independence – that’s about wanting decisions to be taken closer to the people, and about a rejection of the corrupt and intensely conservative Westminster system.

Debates about what our collective identity should be seem as absurd to me as a debate about what our collective sexuality should be. Both are personal, and both of varying levels of interest to different people. People mean different and personal things by these words – as Pete Wishart has demonstrated, which means debate about them is thick with misunderstanding and pointlessness.

As long as the contest is held on the woolly ground of identity rather than practicalities, and as long as the assumption keeps being made that identity of one sort or another is the dominant driver for the public and the parties alike, the SNP will be able to focus on their bogus claim to be speaking for the whole of Scotland and avoid all the tricky questions. And the Moreno Scale needs another option: “Frankly I don’t much care one way or the other – why don’t you ask me about something more important?”