Freedom of Information - a crucial change

Is it really five years since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act came into force? It seems longer somehow. It seems that this has always been part of the landscape, that public authorities - especially in Scotland - have known that information they hold is likely to be available to anyone who asks. Indeed the fact that the major campaign now is to extend the legislation to cover bodies not yet listed, tells you how much the Act has bedded into our political, media, campaigning and community activity.

Of course, the Act was passed in 2002, three years before it came into force, and those three years were spent building an infrastructure, and publishing the implications to anyone who would listen, but the main factor in embedding the Act was the appointment of Kevin Dunion (ex-FoE and Oxfam) as the first Scottish Information Commissioner almost nine years ago. Although his nomination was only passed by a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament, it was always clear that what was needed, was an enthusiast for Freedom of Information to establish the rights of individuals and set up a positive environment for the new legislation, - something that Kevin acknowledged when he spoke to the annual Holyrood Freedom of Information Conference, just before Christmas (see Holyrood interview here).

Kevin’s appointment brought hope to those of us who had been campaigning for Freedom of Information for many years - after all, he has been one of those campaigners - and our hope was not disappointed. Kevin and the staff he gathered around him ploughed a consistent furrow presuming that information should be released, refusing to accept rationalisations from public authorities keen to retain information in their own files, but guided by the law where exemptions are concerned. That he has been successful, not just in applying the law - he has issued 1,400 formal decisions on appeals - but in beginning a change in the attitude of the public sector, says much about how effective his approach was. It is true to say that not everyone in the public sector has got it, Tony Blair and Sir Gus O’Donnell down south, and Lord Smith, Chair of the Glasgow 2014 Ltd, the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee, seem particularly deaf to the benefits of FoI, but the prevailing trend in the public sector now, is a trend to publish, rather than conceal.

Given this, surely the next commissioner has a clear steer on their direction of travel? The Scottish Act has long been held up as a more effective Act that the UK Act, and has led to better decisions (the decision to publish MSP’s expenses, for example surely meant the Scottish Parliament did not attract the level of scandal heaped on its Westminster counterpart). But that lead appears to be slipping. While the Westminster government ploughs on with proposals to extend coverage of its Act to such bodies as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association, the backtracking of the Scottish Government in doing the same - or more - is worrying many practitioners including Kevin himself. And, now that government has the Parliamentary majority to allow it to strengthen the legislation and extend the coverage, it appears not to want to do it. To introduce an amendment to the Act simply to decrease the duration of publication exclusions from 30 years to 15 for some records and to tidy up a legal anomaly, is surely a missed opportunity. The increasing ‘outsourcing’ of our public services requires comprehensive extension to cover local authority trusts and LLPs, private contractors, social housing providers and a range of other bodies. The Scottish Minister, Brian Adam MSP, at the same Holyrood Conference, came under strong pressure from both Kevin and the original architect of the Act, Lord Wallace of Tankerness to extend the Act. He failed to deliver. 

Given such indications of retrenchment coming directly from the top of Scotland’s Government, it becomes increasingly important that whoever is appointed to fill Kevin’s vacancy in February, is also an ‘enthusiast for Freedom of Information’, and remains strongly committed to extending and improving the coverage of this important Act. The temptation might be to appoint a ‘safe pair of hands’ from a parliamentary or government perspective. While not wanting to pre-judge anyone going for the job, to have someone who wants to restrict information and increase exemptions, would be a serious mistake and risk the advances that the Act has given to ordinary people at a crucial time for their public services.

At a time when these services are under increasing threat, and the temptation to outsource grows apace, we should ensure that our right of access to information is not compromised. When Kevin delivers his final report to Parliament next month, I am sure he will point this out. It is up to our parliamentarians to heed the warnings, take the right steps forward themselves, and nominate a replacement to the first Scottish Information Commissioner who can maintain and extend our rights.

Huge turnout for Nov 30 shows new developments in activity, and some political mistakes

Huge turnouts in rallies and marches across Scotland have given the lie to those politicians who have been accusing union leaders of bullying and intimidation. In Glasgow and Edinburgh march and rally attendance topped the 10K mark in each city. Glasgow had to put on an overflow rally meeting to cram ‘em all in. IIn Edinburgh the sight of SNP MSPs joining ConDem MSPs going through union picket lines inspired double the ‘permitted’ number of marchers to cram into the square outside the parliament and listen to an equally inspired Rodney Bickerstaffe demolish the attempts to divide public and private sector workers. “If one person has a leg cut off,” he said does that mean everyone has to have their leg cut off, because it’s not fair?”.  

Rallies and marches took place across Scotland. In Kirkwall, Aberdeen, Moray, Inverness, Motherwell, Dundee, Falkirk, Dumfries, Glenrothes, Paisley, Livingstone. At all of them organisers were reporting double plus the numbers expected. While an estimated 300,000 took strike action in Scotland, around 30,000 also went on marches and rallies, picketed and gave other support.

In Glasgow ‘UNISON have filled the gathering point on their own!’ tweeted the PCS. The demonstration started at 12.30pm and the last got moving at 14.15pm! Those who could get in to the Barrowlands heard UNISON’s Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby point out that “It could cost this country up to £15 billion to support the millions of private sector workers who have been locked out of saving for their retirement."

A number of commentators watching the rallies have been struck by the changing nature of the strikers. Trade unionists, they were certainly, and angry they were too, but they were not the traditional ‘middle-aged male’. Mike Kirby and Dave Prentis both pointed to the key role being played by women in leading the strikes, and others including the president of the National Pensioners Convention, Rodney Bickerstaffe noticed the high proportion of young people involved in the action. Many of the strikers were involved in their first industrial action, and some of the unions taking part - especially small clinical professional bodies - mark a new development, never having taken strike action before.

Are we seeing a new generation of activists taking the  lead? It is maybe too early to say that this marks a significant shift in the levels of collective activity in the young, or in women, or that there is an ‘arab spring’, but there is certainly something in motion that political and trade union leaders ignore at their peril.

The political fallout from the strikes will be interesting, given the  new numbers of activists. My old colleague Dave Watson has blogged about the position here in Scotland and I think his analysis is sound, if a little easy on the major tactical errors made by the Scottish Government. Yes there are very good trade unionists in the SNP ranks, but they are more than outnumbered by their backwoods colleagues. First Minister, Alex Salmond, who rejected union calls for a suspension of the Scottish Parliament, was booed when his picture was held at the Glasgow rally. 

The ConDems in Westminster, too, have seriously misjudged the mood of the nation. Opinion polls and media straw polls for some time now, have been showing increasing support for the strikers, and Tory ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander have been thrashing about trying to find a tactic to demonise trade unions. Now Cameron’s pal, Jeremy Clarkson has let the cat out of the bag. Calling for strikers to be shot in front of their families, is exactly the logical conclusion of Tory government and Daily Mail vitriol. Not that Cameron will be pleased by his dinner pals intervention. The Tories - instead of going on the offensive - have had to spend the day distancing themselves from their fascistic supporter. The BBC too (not for the first time) have spent the day digging themselves deeper into a hole. One does wonder what it would take for the BBC to actually address the damage this presenter is doing to them? As it is they flounder gracelessly making ‘apologies’ that compound the felony.

Media and government attacks will get shriller as November 30 looms - here (hopefully) is some sense.

As the day of the biggest strike in recent history looms we can expect well-heeled government ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander to ramp up the levels of hysteria, media commentators to attack the ‘unfairness’ of ‘gold-plated’ public pensions (from the right) or bemoan the ‘choice of target’ for the strikes (from the centre-left) and politicians to attack each other over tactics. In such a febrile atmosphere, it is handy to hold onto a few counters to the main myths peddled by such people.

Here are some. Public pensions are affordable now, and are likely to become more so in the future. Who says so? Not the PCS or other ‘militant TU leaders’ but the Assistant Editor of that comfortable read for Tory ministers, the Daily Telegraph! Yes Jeremy Warner, back in March pointed out that the Hutton report had identified that these pensions have peaked at 1.8% of GDP currently, and even without his ‘reforms’ will now decline steadily in cost. (interestingly, while he repeats the ‘crowding out’ myth, he also argues for better pensions in the private sector) - ‘there is something plainly unsatisfactory about "race to the bottom" policy, or levelling public sector pensions down to the disgracefully low standards that rule in the private sector.’

Of course, it is also the case that public sector pensions support the private sector. Something that polemicists on the other side tend to overlook as they scream about paying for ‘gold-plated’ bureaucrats’ pensions . As well as fair pensions meaning that pensioners can buy goods and services from the private sector, public pension funds are huge investors in private industry. And, as they are successfully and sustainably funded - UNISON estimates that £300m more is going into the Scottish LGPS before investment income, than is being paid out in pensions - that means, as Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby says ‘Current attacks on both pensions and on public sector employment will be bad for the schemes - and in the long run bad for the economy. The UK Government won’t be putting any of the money they raise or save from stealing from pensions into the schemes - just using it to pay back debt run up to bail out their friends the bankers’.

The strikes are understood and generally supported by the public. Despite the constant battering of government and media attacks, the BBC is today reporting that 61% in an opinion poll they ran believe public service workers are justified in going on strike over the issue. That backs up previous straw polls run after the large UNISON vote to strike. These polls were run in the rabidly anti-union Daily Star, whose readers out-polled the liberal Guardian in support of strikers, and back to our old favourite - the Daily Telegraph. (Might have to think about changing my reading!).

Of course, many of those polled will be strikers or colleagues or family or friends themselves. The voting turn-out in the union ballots is phenomenally good, despite what Francis Maude and others say. Many of the MPs who lead the attacks on trade union democracy a) would give their eye teeth to have levels of support like these and b) are themselves directly responsible for the difficulty in getting improved turnouts in union ballots. Using on-line technology would have helped, (as indeed would workplace ballots), and at least one of those methods has been approved in principle, but not yet put into law. Even so, the ballots from the 30 unions, across many thousands of employers (UNISON itself balloted members in nearly 9,500 employers) show a huge consistency and massive level of support. The best summary is on the impressive ‘Pensions Justice’ site.

The level of support and the breadth of union coverage on this dispute also answers some of the (deliberately?) misinformed attacks by some ‘sympathetic’ commentators that pensions is the ‘wrong issue’. That unions should all co-ordinate a strike over ‘cuts’. Would that they could!! Failing to understand the realities of ‘Trade disputes’ in legislation despite having had them explained, could be put down to deliberate disinformation, more likely it indicates a deep-seated prejudice that is proving immune to reason.

Finally, the (somewhat cheesey, but well-intentioned) supporters single continues to build support. Watch and buy it here. The AFL/CIO (after Wisconsin) went for Tom Morello’s ‘Union Town’!!

See you on the picket line!!

Does increase in ‘constitutional froth’ mar our Scottish media?

In a previous job, a colleague used to regularly advise us to be aware of what he would call ‘froth’ in some reporting of the political scene in Scotland. By that he meant stories that were headline news in some or even all newspapers, and consisted of opposing politicians attacking one another. These stories (of which there were many) were distinguished by the topic of the debate/discussion being either of minor importance, or incapable of any kind of resolution by the combatants involved, eg a consultation.

This has come to mind again recently. It currently seems that a whole raft of spats are being created in the media by pronouncements from Scottish or  Coalition Governments (or Labour Opposition). From consultations on gay marriage, and Scotland’s rail travel, through pronouncements about the impact of independence on the Scottish economy and renewable energy targets to even the furore over ‘doing-gate’ in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the sight of our politicians attacking one another over the constitutional question is becoming less and less edifying (or significant). 

To add to the spectacle, the reporting of these tiffs - from uncritical adoption of the participants’ view of their importance, to the sensationalist bigging-up of the ‘rows’ - seem to blank out sensible analysis and investigation of the issues at all. How much of this is due to continual cuts in journalistic and editorial resources, and how much due to the predetermined political stance of the media in question needs further study, but it does not lead to good reporting.

Now I don’t want to suggest that the individual topics and issues have no validity or importance, at all. Heaven forfend that I might suggest that the Catholic church secretly approves of gay marriage, for example! Or that CitiBank may have a vested interest in rubbishing renewable energy per se. But it is interesting how these disputes tend to end up concentrating on the ‘Referendum’ when we all know that this is some years away, and will not be able to be run successfully unless Westminster and Holyrood come to some agreement (or at least armed neutrality) on key issues. It isn’t even yet clear whether the SNP want a one or two question referendum - or what that would mean for any result!

Am I alone in thinking that at least part of the reason for this froth is to distract us from the key issues that impact on people in Scotland, and the failure of both legislatures to address these? And that this suits both of them?

After all, is Alex Salmond be pleased or upset that George Osborne attacks Scotland’s investment record? Is George Osborne? Is Salmond reasonably happy to be seen as a ‘modern, liberal-thinking FM’ over gay marriage? And while the archaic and macho operations of Westminster are indeed something to be opposed (as we all did in the Constitutional Convention, hoping and planning for a more co-operative and mature Holyrood!) is the SNP ultimately pleased to leave a vacant seat in the Scottish Affairs Committee and wash its hands of a scrutiny of the Scotland Bill where it doesn’t have a majority? Incidentally, the best comment on this episode must be by Joyce MacMillan in her Scotsman piece (on her blog here).

So there can be good reporting. We do have journalists (like Joyce, but not only her) who can blow away the froth and get to the nub of the issue. But increasingly this role is reserved for the commentators. News reporters tend to slot happily into pre-ordained nationalist or unionist tracks, using hyperbolic prose to inflate partisan pronouncements and prejudices into ‘facts’ or suggestions of ‘facts’. (I thought the idea - seriously mentioned by a senior Scottish reporter on Wednesday - that the Electoral Reform Society was part of an anti-SNP ‘conspiracy’ was the nadir of this tendency!)

The latest fight appears to be over an almost unbelievable consultation document on Scotland’s rail transport from Scottish Government agency, Transport Scotland. If you hadn’t had previous with this agency, then it might even look as though the outrageous suggestions in this document were there deliberately to be able to be removed as a ‘listening response’. I have to say that my experience suggests that they are not that forward thinking. But as Scottish Government ministers line up to distance themselves from their own organisation, a suspicion must remain.

At the end of the day, when people are crying out for an economic policy that addresses the crisis we are in, and uses the excess profits of the finance industry to support those who are suffering because of the fallout from the banks’ criminal risk taking, how are our governments responding? Apparently, by ignoring these problems in favour of claim and counter claim about ‘running Scotland down’ or ‘breaking Britain up’.

When two establishments are trying to tell us about the overwhelming importance of the constitutional question, we need more from our media than unquestioning/sensationalist reporting - from whichever side of the constitutional divide. It is also particularly important when the parliaments both have a built-in majority, compliant in one case, and scared in the other, that they are held to account. In this our media has a crucial role. When will we see it adopting this important task?

Independence - which way will the Trades Unions jump?

This is the substance of a contribution I made to a recent debate organised by the Communist Party of Scotland on the topic of trade unions and independence. Other contributers included Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group, Jimmy Cloughley of the CPS and ex-UCS Steward and Dave Moxham, DGS of the STUC. I believe it is planned to put out a pamphlet collecting the contributions together. 

Despite the somewhat febrile, and often almost certainly manufactured reports that pass for debate on the issue of independence in the press - and not just the tabloids - This is certainly the first serious discussion that I am aware of that covers this ground - a fact that in itself is significant and says much about where TUs are at the moment. More on that later.

Who are we talking about?

The first thing to say about Scottish Trade Unions is of course that there are damn few of them! With the exception of the teaching profession, the vast majority of TUs operating in Scotland are UK organisations which sometimes have a Scottish organisation with a degree of autonomy, more or less broad depending on the organisation.

(Of course some TUs are actually British Isles-wide operations - with sections in the Irish Republic and/or Northern Ireland, but that would be to open up another whole debate).

Despite the increasingly separate nature of law, politics, media and attitudes in Scotland, very few TUs have properly addressed these factors. When I was appointed by Nalgo in 1989, I was the only TU publicity person employed in Scotland, and even then I was officially attached to the union’s London department, who told me that I should not be dealing with the Scottish media!

The arrival of a Scottish Parliament, a merger of unions and a reorganisation of HQ departments took place before even UNISON - and I venture to suggest that they were in the forefront of addressing the issues - set up the type of structure that took cognisance of the new realities in Scotland.

Now the recognition of these needs is wider, but I venture to suggest that it still isn’t universal in the TU movement. This, of course, has an impact not only in the union concerned but in STUC - a fully autonomous body, able to (and I suggest very successfully) articulate and promote the TU movement’s profile and views with Scotland’s politicians, media and civic society. The STUC, however, is resourced and financed by these same central UK organisations with varying levels of autonomy. The last factor of all to be autonomised, of course being finance!! (Even UNISON - with its high levels of Branch organisation, policy, media, campaigning, bargaining, and communications autonomy, still pays its STUC affiliation fees from London, and technically its delegation to Congress is bound by UNISON UK policy).

A rough count suggests that of 650,000 TU members in Scotland - 580,000 are in UK-based unions.

What shapes their policy?

Of course, if we are looking at attitudes to independence, it will not always be the case that this will be dependent on where the union is based. Policy-making is sometimes a complex process in our TUs and there are degrees of relaxation on whether policy on Scottish issues is made close to the source, or remotely from London - often degrees of relaxation that vary according to the issue. In UNISON for example, London would be relaxed about a Scottish policy decision being taken on (say) devolution of broadcasting, but would be far from relaxed on a Scottish policy calling for (say) the break up of the NHS. In either case, however, ultimately the union’s policy will be adopted by the union as a whole.

In fact the NHS proves to be an interesting case in point illustrating another factor that will influence TU attitudes to independence. It is something that has already caused waves within UNISON and will no doubt, have varying impacts on other unions. The principle that someone doing a particular job in one hospital or clinic (or any other workplace) should be paid the same as someone doing that job in another, is a strongly-held union principle and one that underpins grading structures in UK-wide organisations such as the NHS. 

It is of course, also one that employers increasingly want to scrap, so the thought that independence may give that attack further support may well predispose TU activist minds (on both side of the border) in opposition to independence.

A similar concern may also apply in regard to reserved legislation such as that covering employment, work-related benefits and health and safety. Should you lose protection in work when you cross a border? Currently TUs would answer ‘No’ to that, though of course current Tory proposals to attack these rights may sway debate in this area.

Affiliation

A third factor that will militate against TUs deciding in favour of independence, is of course, affiliation to the Labour Party, which is not in favour.

There are 14 Scottish unions affiliated to the Labour Party. (One union affiliate has no members in Scotland). And they cover around 441,000 of the members in Scotland.

Of course, that isn’t the whole story in terms of their membership. Many of the affiliated unions will have substantial membership numbers in Scotland who do not pay the political levy or who do, but would support independence in any case. 

I think UNISON is unique in its twin-track affiliated/non-affiliated political funding, but the SNP TU group has been campaigning for some years now for people to opt-out of affiliated political funds in other unions, (in my view a serious mistake). This will have had some success. Plus there will be members of all affiliated unions down South who don’t pay the political levy and/or who may be part of what I call the ‘sod-off Jock!’ tendency increasingly seen in parts of England.

So, you will have a membership, even in the affiliated unions, who may be ripe to hear the arguments for independence. Whether they will have the strength, the power or the tenacity to have an impact on their union’s policy on the matter, however, is debatable.

Non-Affiliated - potential supporters?

Of course to view those unions that are not affiliated as natural supporters of independence is also a mistake. in my view. While the likes of the FBU and RMT might be thought to be only too happy to be an awkward squad - especially if Labour is on the opposite side - it should be remembered that the FBU is of course part of a UK bargaining machine similar to that in the NHS. So too are the Civil Service unions. and for them you can add an almost pathological aversion to publicly siding with any political view that would be seen as party political - in the way that independence will.

Even in my own union, the NUJ - most likely to be relaxed about dealing with union organisation across boundaries - after all they already do it in Ireland, I think the view that as journalists we must be even-handed to all sides will hold a lot of sway.

But this brief survey is maybe a little missing the point. After all, TUs are essentially - much as we might not like it - not think tanks, not policy wonks breaking new ground with blue sky thinking - but essentially pragmatic organisations that have been created to defend and advance the living and working standards of their members. In many ways reactive rather than proactive organisations.

How will they decide?

I don’t doubt that in the fevered hothouses of TU research departments in Edinburgh and Glasgow (but of course mostly in London) there are people pouring over research, and analyses trying to work out the ‘what-if’s’ of Scottish Independence. But it isn’t occupying the waking hours of their members. No doubt, if and when a referendum is called, then the TU movement will take a decision (or many different decisions) on their policies, but I venture to suggest, if we are talking about reactive organisations with a clear function on defending members, then those debates will be set in the context of ‘what is the impact on our members?’. In a nutshell - will Scottish Independence be a benefit or a detriment to those members - not just in Scotland but across the memberships? At the current time it seems unlikely that this question will be answered in the affirmative.

Are concerns allayed by independence?

The current concerns of TU members - are remarkably similar and similar across the nations of the UK. The threats to jobs, pay, services and of course, currently pensions stems from the Westminster Government’s austerity measures and is being fought - in my view correctly - with a UK-wide co-ordination. While the Scottish Government is able to (and does) criticise these policies, they find themselves in the position of largely passing on the cuts to their recipients in the public and voluntary sectors.

Indeed, while ‘It’s all the fault of Westminster’, is a sentiment we can probably unite around, the suggestions so far about what an independent Scotland would look like, is currently unclear, and the signs are not good. For example, why does the Scottish Government want to control Corporation Tax so badly? To ensure that the bankers and financiers who drove us unheeding into the debt crisis pay back the bail out that they received from us? Apparently not, what is required according to the Scottish Government, is less tax on business to attract more overseas companies into Scotland. The Scottish Government has been notably business friendly in many areas -  the Scottish Futures organisation with its attempts to continue the PFI route (watch out for more of that shortly, by the way), is merely another example.

On the positive side, of course, in Scotland there is a greater value placed on, and defense of public services and public provision. I wouldn’t want to ignore that courageous decision of Nicola Sturgeon to build the new SGH through public provision for example. 

But this attitude to public services largely crosses party boundaries in Scotland - and, what is more, has been a distinctive feature of devolution in any case - so any specific advantage of independence still remains to be clearly spelled out.

Still a huge job to be done

In short, there is some way to go before the Scottish Government or other advocates of Scottish independence can articulate an argument that details a practical case that working people will significantly benefit from independence for Scotland, and such an argument will be important in attracting potential allies from TUs and their activists.

Does all this suggest that those who wish to call for independence need to look elsewhere and ignore the TU movement? Can I suggest they shouldn’t? When Alex Salmond celebrated his stunning victory on May, he said he planned to try and govern though consensus. There has, unfortunately been little practical experience of that so far, but I think that it remains the only sensible aim.

And maybe if it can’t happen inside the Parliament, maybe it should happen outside. After all the trade union movement - well at least the majority of it inside Scotland - isn’t, I don’t think, scared of independence. After all there are already many areas where they have suggested increasing powers to be devolved and contributed much of the evidence to the much-maligned Scotland Bill - devolution of broadcasting, equal opportunities, and immigration legislation are proposals that come immediately to my mind. There are more.

No, the TU movement currently cannot see the relevance of the independence debate, and when the issue looms larger in their ken, they will remain to be convinced. Not an impossibility, but a job that remains to be done.

UCS@40 - the reason for silence here!

Just a short blog at the Captain's site to apologise to all followers for the silence here for a few months.
The reason - which might be suspected by many - is that I have been working on the celebrations for the 40th Anniversary of the UCS work-in. I was asked by FairPley to assist them with the communications and have been enjoying the work immensely. 
Working with the UCS Work-In veterans has been a revelation, and their willingness to be interviewed on the topic almost anywhere, at any time has made the media work a joy (and is indicative of one of the reasons why the work-in got such a sympathetic press at the time). Also the input of the 'stars' especially the great Tony Benn, was key to the stories we were successful in getting into the media.
We produced some excellent material to sell at the gig (programme, badge, polo shirt) all featuring the 'UCS Work-In' logo drawn by the legendary Bobby Starrett - the Work-In cartoonist. These will all shortly be available to buy, for people who couldn't make the concert.
The releases and some of the media stories are listed on the other blog - UCS@40 . Despite the main event being over, a few key celebrations remain. One, announced today, is a second anniversary concert - this time run as part of Celtic Connections. Robert Dawson Scott has a nice piece on the launch on STV. Another - planned for March 2012 - is a screening of the Cinema Action films. Watch the UCS@40 blog for details.

Scottish Water failings outline exactly why Freedom of Information coverage must be extended

UNISON last week ‘celebrated’ a ruling from Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion that Scottish Water must reveal costings of PFI contracts that have been operational for some 10 or more years. The celebrations - which mark another step in the union’s long term campaign against this expensive and increasingly bizarre way of funding public service capital expenditure - may however have been somewhat muted.

One reason for this is that not all the information was able to be released. Incredibly Scottish Water do not hold Full Business Cases(FBCs) for nine multi-million pound PFI projects. That is, the documents that purport to show why the paying of £600 million in capital costs, and the continued paying of £130m a year of our money to private contractors to build, and operate sewage works, water treatment works and other vital public services is a good deal, don’t exist (at least in Scottish Water’s hands)!

So, while (courtesy of the Act, and Mr Dunion) we know what the projects are costing (although Scottish Water didn’t want to tell us all of that), we do not know what alternatives were investigated, and we do not know why other methods of funding were discounted - although we can make a guess! 

One of the excuses that Scottish Water used was that the contracts were entered into before they existed, by the previous water authorities. Maybe they got lost in the merger. We all know how difficult it is to keep track of these minor bits of paper when bringing filing together! Come to think of it, maybe those advocating merged Police and Fire Services better keep an eye open for the contracts slipping down the back of the sofa!

However it gets worse! In 2001 Scottish Water told a Scottish Parliament Committee that three of the nine FBCs existed - the Scottish Government website still claims that two do! UNISON is rightly scandalised that a major quango misled Parliament in this way, and was/is so cavalier with your cash! 

But that is the way of PFI contracts. As we are now finding out, the chickens are beginning to settle in the roosting barns with a vengeance. As most if not all of these contracts contain clauses ‘ring-fencing’ the payments to the private contractors, when public sector cash contracts (as it currently is), the only payments guaranteed, are these to PFI contractors. So other essential services suffer increased cutbacks while PFI contracts don’t (if you get my drift).

Oh, and by the way, the contractors themselves are NOT covered by the Freedom of Information Act so, no point in asking them the kind of questions that opened up the ‘mystery of the missing FBCs’ to find out how (for example) contractors take decisions in delivering these services, or what staffing ratios they choose to use, or a million and one other pieces of information on what they do with your money. Indeed, water and sewerage in England - as it is fully privatised - isn’t covered by their FOI Act at all! 

Private contractors ARE covered (in both England and Scotland) to a limited extent through what are known as the Environmental Information Regulations. Indeed, Kevin Dunion specifically judged that these were the appropriate regulations to use in the UNISON case. But they only apply to environmental information. And in any case FOI is supposed to be straightforward, simple, open and transparent. Having two different standards does not help that aim. 

Isn’t it time that the Scottish Government dusted off their proposals to extend the FOI Act in Scotland to cover the myriad of outsourced, private, voluntary, partnerships, trusts and other bodies that are being invented to deliver your services with your money? Not only should they be dusted off (even the Westminster Tories are planning some extension to their Act) they should - to mix a metaphor - be beefed up! They have a majority now...

Who knows where the money goes?

The opposition of Glasgow 2014 to telling you what they are doing with your money, is yet another example of why the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) should be extended to private companies and other organisations that increasingly deliver our public services, and spend our money. It is a pity that the last Scottish Government dropped its proposals to start that process.

The kind of outdated thinking expounded by Lord Smith, claiming that private companies will run away from contracts with his body, should they have to tell us what they do with our money, has long been dispersed from guidance that form the procedures that public bodies and the Scottish Information Commissioner have operated under since 2005. Indeed this guidance strongly advises public authorities NOT to include so-called ‘confidentiality clauses’ in contracts. Has Lord Smith included such clauses in their contracts?

But of course Glasgow 2014 is a private company, and they claim they are not subject to the FOI(S)A. Although, because they are one of the quasi-public bodies increasingly used (particularly by Glasgow City Council) to avoid the cumbersome business of accountability, it may not be quite as open and shut as they would like to think (publicly owned companies are already subject to the Act).

This sort of old-style resistance to telling us what is going on is, of course one of the reasons that the SIC and many other bodies argued strongly for the last Scottish government to extend the coverage of FOI(S)A. An extension they unfortunately dropped in the run up to the last Scottish Election.

Failing to divulge public information will, of course, increase damaging speculation about expenditure and motivation when events turn newsworthy. Contrariwise (you can see I’m reading a Lewis Carroll biography), openness is the way to effectively deal with public relations crises. Any (good) PR expert can tell you that.

So, in charge of of the 80% publicly-funded Commonwealth Games, we have an organisation that a) is apparently unaware of the guidance on contractual confidentiality that public bodies abide by, and b) either does not have, or chooses to ignore standard public relations practice. Not an impressive track record. No wonder we need private sector information to be opened up when they spend our money!

Tommy reviewers need a long spoon

Let me say straight away I believe Tommy Sheridan made the biggest mistake of his political life in defying the advice of almost all of his friends and party comrades to go into direct legal confrontation with the News of the World. He would have known that he faced a mass of contrary evidence from others on the ultra-left and the case would tear that group apart. To take the case on, whether or not he lied, and got others to lie for him, automatically meant him putting his personal standing above the political needs of the far left.

Why then am I so disturbed by Paul Hutcheon’s review in Saturday’s Herald, of Alan McCombes book on the hugely damaging affair? After all, both McCombes and Hutcheon are of the same opinion - although they both would I think, take it a good deal further than me.

I am also well aware that media editors like to give books on controversial subjects to reviewers with strongly-held views on the topic in question, whether for or (more often) against the authors thesis. This review is an example of why it is often a bad idea. One doesn’t have to be a Sheridan supporter to find the eulogising of Alan McCombes somewhat OTT. To one who spent many meetings listening to and watching Alan and other acolytes of the Revolutionary Socialist League operate in the Labour Party of the late 1970‘s and 1980’s, this modest man brilliantly writing savage turns of phrase with his unimpeachable integrity must be a completely reformed character!

Maybe the clue to my uncomfortableness lies in the penultimate para of the review. Hutcheon’s states that “Downfall has not altered my own unshakeable conclusions about the 2004-10 disaster: that while McCombes is a man of unimpeachable integrity, Sheridan is the most despicable politician I have ever encountered.” He no doubt has both reasons and evidence for this view, and of course, is entitled to it, but I question the wisdom of giving this book to someone with such staunch views to review. Given their similarity of viewpoint, it would surely have been a miracle if Downfall even gently agitated Paul Hutcheon’s ‘unshakeable conclusions’.

This review may have given Paul Hutcheon an opportunity to let off steam, and welcome the ‘happy ending’ of Tommy Sheridan in a prison cell, but in terms of shedding light on the  book, a panegyric is as ineffective as a hatchet-job.

Where is the TaxPayers'Alliance?

Unaccountably, those upstanding (and unelected) champions of your tax dosh,  the Tax Payers Alliance, seem to have missed a good news story for Scottish tax payers. 


This is the recent announcement by the Scottish Government that the massive M74 extension is due to open 8 months early and £20m under budget. Given all those private business funded resources for monitoring the media, and the close working arrangement private contractors had with the council and Transport Scotland joint venture, you'd think that they would have noticed either the Scottish Government release - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/06/14151514 or the later (but more balanced) UNISON one - http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/news/2011/mayjune/1706a.htm


Maybe only tax savings invented by the TDA and their private sector lobby make it into their PRs and onto their pages?

Stirring the clear yellow water of independence

I was rudely awakened this morning by the sound of the normally calm, urbane and sophisticated Gerry Hassan shouting at some poor unfortunate on GMS! Intrigued as to what had exercised our commentator I listened further. Turns out that this outburst had been occasioned by a disagreement over Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore’s claim that independence would require two referenda to be administered before being achieved.

Gerry was otherwise minded and his ‘opponent’ Alan Trench got both barrels. (Although we found out later that both actually agreed on the advisability or otherwise of this approach.)

But it did suggest to me that Michael Moore might have inadvertantly raised an important procedural point. At what stage does a referendum take place? And what agreements have to be in place before it actually achieves what it sets out to do?

Amidst all the fog of independence-lite, and devolution-max, a number of crucial questions remain to be clarified before clear question(s) could be put to the Scottish people. Ones that immediately come to my mind are - monarchy or republic? boundaries? single currency or sterling? armed forces and defence? There may well be more and each of these - I would hazard - might cause disagreements, not just between unionists and nationalists, but even within the ranks of nationalists. Debate on them could take some resolving, but might make considerable difference to the views of voters. How much would an ‘independent’ Scottish monarchy under a ‘UK’ crown, using ‘UK’ currency, and defended by ‘UK’ troops be ‘independent’ for example - whether the ‘K’ stood for ‘Kingdom’ or ‘Kingdoms’? Would we be more independent in the Euro - shall we ask our Irish, Greek or Portuguese colleagues? Land boundaries might be obvious (leaving aside the question of Berwick-on-Tweed) but what about marine boundaries?

Would any negotiations around these (and other) questions be resolvable by agreement? What happens if the parameters are not agreed? Could we simply leave them to some constitutional court. At one time we might have looked to the UK Supreme Court, I suspect its even-handedness might now be a little more in question! So where would we go now? Europe?

This murky water, I think, is where Michael Moore has placed his size 11s. If we are talking one referendum, then the answers to these (and no doubt other) questions need to be clear to we who are voting. If not, then any early referendum would be about aspirations and would need to be followed by negotiations. On the outcome of these would rest any further vote.

It might be, as Gerry alluded this morning, a device for the British state to draw out and confuse the discussion, but I suspect two factors suggest that this isn’t likely. One, is that within nationalist ranks it seems there are some who are already flying kites on some of these very questions - coming down too definitively on one side or the other may not be in the interests of a united pro-independence campaign. Secondly, are we so sure that Cameron will be too concerned about a separate Scotland? It might be in his political best interests.

Meanwhile, the important (and more concerning) statement that the UK government was not inclined to devolve any more powers under the Scotland Bill, has almost slipped by unnoticed. Is this a ConDem double bluff? Do they want to hand such a key stick to the nationalists?

Word on The Street

Anyone who reads this blog regularly (anyone?) will be aware that I have in the past, criticised the BBC for bowing to pressure from outside (or even inside) groups to pursue (or not to criticise) one political  line or another. Today, however, I am pleased to be able to defend the Beeb against such a criticism - in this case from the Herald’s TV Critic, Mark Smith.

In Saturday’s Herald, Mark took exception to the Nick Robinson-fronted programme - The Street that Cut Everything. If you didn’t see this it was a bit of an experiment wrapped up in a ‘reality show’ format where a street in Preston had their council services withdrawn for six weeks, and their council tax returned to them. They then had to deal with the sort of problems that council services try to address - cleansing, benefits, school transport, noise pollution, lighting etc. etc. and also decide how to pay for them. After six weeks the relief on a residents face when the bin lorry rumbled back down the road was worth putting up with Nick Robinson’s smirk for!

While there were legitimate criticisms that could be levelled against the programme, the ‘game show’ approach of dumping loads of rubbish, dog poo etc on the street and then saying to the residents - well, what are you going to do about it? - did grate after a while, and no doubt academics and politicians would find plenty to ask about by way of what finances were returned (just council tax, or their proportion of central government grant)? What services were not withdrawn (we knew school.s and emergency services were still there, but what about all the services that no one on the street used? I didn’t see anyone try to go to a library for example. But this debate rather misses the point. What the programme did show, and what Mark Smith took issue with, was that councils provide a lot more services than people realise, that they cost more than they think, and that cutting funding for those services will mean that front line services will go. Mark apparently thought that this was just a publicity stunt for Preston Council (and indeed councils in general) and that as it ‘had an agenda’ shouldn’t have been made by the BBC.

It will not be a surprise that this is exactly why I think that a responsible public service broadcaster SHOULD be making such programmes. If they don’t, who else will? There are plenty of stories about the amount of public money supposedly ‘wasted’ by councils, and plenty of right-wing, big business funded, front organisations like the Tax Dodgers Alliance who very successfully feed these into the media (yes, even to the Beeb). To put the other side - however superficially - is in my view the essence of balance, and raised good solid questions about the received wisdom on public services that the private lobby puts out.

I never thought that I would say this, but well done to Nick Robinson (I’ve not been slow to criticise him before, so this too is a bit of balance!), and to the BBC. Around 18 months ago, UNISON pointed out in one of its Scottish Public Works briefings the actual cost of our public services. We also produced a leaflet showing how much we all use these services. Now the BBC has taken a small section of public services, and a single street and raised those same issues. The fact that many of the street’s residents found this out during the making of this programme, shows why it was in the public interest to do this documentary, and why the BBC should be congratulated for the attempt.

The word on the street, is not Agenda, Mark, it is Balance. Something the BBC should be producing at all times.

Party tales - 3; The SNP

It seems almost sacreligious to attempt an analysis of the opportunities and pitfalls of the SNP after their tremendous success in the Scottish Election. After all, hasn’t it been ‘historic’, ‘seismic’, ‘ground-shifting’`? They now have what I (and certainly most others) thought was a psephological impossibility - an absolute majority in a (at least partly) proportional house. And they have a clear aim and programme - what could possibly go wrong?

Well, in fact in the seeds of their success could lie a number of problems. And it is clear that the policy and campaigning machine that the SNP created, (There is a good interview with Stephen Noon, SNP policy chief, here.) and which delivered so spectacularly for them this year is also aware of them - or at least some of them. Some of the early statements of Alex Salmond about ‘forgiveness’ make much more sense when that context is recognised.

Firstly of course, the scale of their majority might lead to a couple of problematic developments. Large majorities (and this in a Scottish context is the biggest!), can lead to both arrogance and dismissal of opposition, and/or to the development of an internal opposition. It also means the Scottish Government will now have to deliver on their campaign promises. The four years of ‘recognising-that-we-don’t-have-a-majority’ are over and difficult/uncosted promises must now be implemented. That will be more difficult than people think. The removal of the last local discretion to raise their own funding from our councils in the longer term, may well prove impossible without huge costs. UNISON pointed out early how the then proposed ‘local’ income tax fell short of raising sufficient cash to cover the council tax abolition, here. and the last Scottish Government’s desperate struggle to hide costs suggests there may be other problems.

In terms of the potential for steam-rollering, it is clear from Alex’s statements that he (and his SPADs) are wary of the impact that such an impression would give. Nevertheless, some straws in the wind show they are right to be concerned. The election of Tricia Marwick as Presiding Officer, while not ‘delivered’ by the Government, highlights one problem. The perceived ‘safe’ (for the Government) candidate was elected by the thumping majority over both a candidate from a party which has never supplied a PO, and a ‘awkward’ candidate from the majority party. The warnings about the danger of this were correct - however ill-judged the selection of the warnee was!

And the Government do have a problem here. They want to deliver their programme; they have had four years of frustration which they can now avenge; and they have the delirious clamour from their own members and supporters (many now in Parliament) urging them on. Can they balance that desire for progress/revenge with the public statements about ‘working with other parties/groups’? This has been the downfall of other governments elsewhere, and it is far from clear that, even if Alex himself is on message, other party colleagues will be. No-one has ever mistaken Alex Neil or Kenny Macaskill for shrinking violets!

I think it less likely that there will be the development of an effective internal opposition. While the SNP are less a political party, than an act of faith, and contain political activists from extreme right to left within their midst, most have had too much experience of how media and opposition exploit splits to want to create one. The large number of ‘new’ MSPs will want to maintain their position, and the party faithful - with their eyes on the prize of an independence referendum can be relied on to toe the line. 

One thing that might upset this balance, is if the SNP fundamentalists think their referendum is being watered down by their own. It is clear from judicious leaks from SNP HQ, that the ‘Independence-lite’ option is being seriously considered. A win in the referendum - whatever the question - is clearly seen as essential. If the terms are lite-enough, might it be even a possibility that other parties (not just the Greens and Socialists) may shift to back a ‘Yes’ vote? That might prove a step too far for the Cyber-Nats.

A successful ‘hope-for change’ based campaign also contains dangers, as politicians from Tony Blair through to Barack Obama have discovered. The essence of the SNP’s successful campaign was a positive call for a better Scotland, and it caught a spark. (Pat Kane’s insightful piece on the success of positive campaigns should be read by all party strategists. Push past the psycho-babble, it’s worth it!). Plus the use of very strong public and internal communications also delivered for them.

Now, however the party faces the difficulty of delivering with straitened finances, and of keeping the trust of the voters who voted for them in such large numbers. We already see SNP ministers trying to ‘accentuate the positive’ (Swinney downplaying the high levels of Scottish unemployment blackspots recently for example). And at least one reason for the Scottish Government move to negotiate a strong Scotland Bill must surely be to try and deliver some levers of finance to give them wiggle room.

However it is dressed up though, service cuts and unemployment, are on the agenda, and on the agenda for a large number of the SNP’s ‘new voters’. Obviously one tactic will be (not unfairly) to blame Westminster, but the big business support evident during the election will want some form of ConDem policies (if window-dressed) in Scotland. With an overall majority, and if given extra powers, the blame game may well begin to wear a bit thin. As the STUC has already pointed out, for example - is it such a good idea to devolve corporation tax, so a Scottish Government can further cut money coming in to fund public services? Incidentally it will be interesting to see what Cameron delivers in terms of a strengthened Scotland Bill. What will Tory policy on this be? Give them enough rope or cut Scotland loose?

Oppositions don’t win elections - governments lose them. The last SNP government delivered a competent if uninspiring administration. This meant they were in a good position to ‘not lose’ before the campaign. What the campaign delivered was a scene-change, by successfully sweeping up disaffected voters (from all parties, but mostly from the LibDems), with a positive, but not too specific message.

As the Tories, LibDems (and before them, New Labour) have found however, when voters feel their positive trust in a party has been betrayed, they are very clear and very sophisticated in their ability to express their fury. That could still happen.

Party tales - 2 The Scottish Tories

The announcement of the retiral of Annabel Goldie from the leadership of the Scottish Tories may signal the return of the ‘nasty party’ image that she (and her predecessor David McLetchie) had spent so much time trying to repair. Indeed the manner of her going is almost like the days of Thatcher and the ‘men in suits’. It may also  signal  the retreat of the Tory party back over the border, but this remains to be seen.

Everyone’s favourite auntie - everyone outside the Scottish Tories that is - she finally succumbed when the results showed that what many thought was impossible had happened. Although obscured by the virtually complete melt-down of the LibDem votes, there was a further drop of between 2 and 5% in what was considered the hard core of the Tory vote in Scotland. This may not be even close to the beating meted out to their coalition partners, but people voting for the Tories knew what they are getting and support their economics, unlike those who felt betrayed by the LibDems.

This level of drop may be explicable, given an unpopular Tory government in Westminster, but the Tory party is not given to tolerance of failure. It is ironic, too, as Annabel had probably more than anyone else, begun to rekindle sympathy for the Tories in Scotland.

The future direction of the party now hangs in the balance. Do they continue down the ‘One Nation’ route, which runs the risk of alienating them (in practice, if not in image) from their Westminster colleagues, or do they line up much more ideologically behind their economic liberalism and rekindled Thatcherism?

Of course, given the views of voters here, will any lurch to the right, consolidate them or further damage their electoral prospects in Scotland? How much was the Westminster leadership involved in the ousting of the Scottish leader? It strikes me that there are two possible scenarios. 

One, the party continues in the positive engagement mode at Holyrood, that Annabel had championed. That would at least buy them some time and, who knows, if they made some intercessions on Scotland’s behalf, might even continue the respect-building. Two, the party lurches to the right, readopts a Thatcherite liberal, free market policy line, advocating Westminster ConDem policies in Scotland in the teeth of the bulk of public opinion.

Scenario one, I suggest, is unlikely. Given the size of Alec’s victory, who is there for the Tories to engage with? He doesn’t need them now, and if he wants to pick a fight with Westminster in advance of an Independence referendum, concessions to the Tories in Scotland are unlikely. In any case, if this was to be the course, why drop the pilot? 

And in any case, does David Cameron want to ameliorate his government’s policies for Scotland? Might he not see the sloughing off of a public service-valuing, troublesome, socialist-inclined drag on his reforms as something he quietly welcomes? Certainly there is a clear shift in Scottish business towards the SNP and independence. The Tory-backing Sun advocated a vote for the SNP in the Holyrood elections, and some Tory commentators have openly advocated winding up the Scottish Tories and creating a separate Scottish free-market, right-wing party.

One way of doing this might be to replace Annabel, with a more toe-the-economic line leader, (say Jackson Carlaw or Murdo Fraser) who would more strongly advocate Westminster policies for Scotland. Any resulting unpopularity might make the case for Scottish independence more palatable to Tory backers, and similarly provide the impetus for a ‘new’ right-wing Scottish party.  

This is not to say that Cameron will advocate independence. Indeed, he will be as strongly pro-union in any independence referendum as he was pro FPTP in the AV one. But he is likely to be pragmatic. If there are diminishing returns in a business, it might be better to hive it off. Let’s face it, how many more Westminster seats can the Tories lose?

A Heuch for Victor Jara!

If you live in Edinburgh or within easy reach, why not go along to what sounds like a cracking night on Saturday 14 May.

A tonic for all bruised activists. (and a celebration for jubilant ones), A Ceilidh for Victor Jara with the Cosmic Ceilidh Collective is at the Tollcross Community Centre in Embra, @ 7.00pm. £10/8 - http://geomium.com/event/0005159792524075349/

Victor Jara was a theatre director and folk singer/songwriter who infused Chile and South America's cultural identity in the 60's and early 70's with a pride and respect for its local roots. He was tortured and killed during the days of Pinochet's military coup in 1973, and became synonymous with the Chilean resistance to Pinochet.

His widow, Joan Jara and one of her daughters, Manuela Bunster will be present at the Ceilidh. They set up the Victor Jara Foundation, which will receive the proceeds of this ceilidh. It exists to preserve the memory of Víctor’s artistic heritage and works on a range of cultural and human rights projects.

Party time for all in Scotland? 1 - the Scottish LibDems

Now that the final losing Scottish party leader has had the visit from the ‘men in grey suits’, it is perhaps appropriate to look at what the results might lead to for all our political parties.

For the LibDems it is clearly desperation alley. Tavish’s too-precipitate resignation (from a LibDem party perspective who with any credibility is available to take over?) is surely so he can say more forcefully what he was hinting at in the final days of the campaign. That is that participation in the ‘cuts coalition’ - in particular after a General Election campaign predicated on ‘ a LibDem vote is a vote against Tory cuts’ - is leading to a massive haemorrhage of the LibDem vote, especially in Scotland where it was never the volatile ‘floating voter’ option that it is south of the border.

Ironically this will not lead to a break-up of the coalition. Indeed the spectre of a mass cull of LibDem MPs by the electorate north and south of the border if an election was to be called will concentrate their minds wonderfully. Plus, of course, Nick Clegg knows this is his only chance of a sniff of power - possibly for ever - and is most unlikely to threaten that. Despite his sabre-rattling over the NHS, he is only demanding what Tory cabinet ministers are already planning for the NHS in England & Wales.

In any case he and the rest of the ‘orange-bookers’ in the LibDems are probably more at home with the Tories in the UK Government than they are with the mainly social liberals of the Scottish Party. However, a split in the party is most unlikely at this stage for the reasons above and below!

Is Clegg himself likely to be challenged? After all the party faithful have allegedly only stuck with the strategy of accepting coalition to deliver PR, and this must now be dead for the foreseeable future. But the LibDems have always been capable of ignoring almost diametrically opposed positions of its elected representatives, and this won’t stop now. 

More likely is a quiet drift away of activists, similar to the Labour Party’s losses in the Blair years.

However, it is likely that the Scottish party will take an increasingly separate line from that at Westminster. Who the new leader is will tell us this. Whether it improves the Scottish party’s position is doubtful. It will take more than this to overcome the betrayal their voters feel. In particular voters do not like to be obviously lied to, as Clegg admitted doing when he said on TV that he knew during the General Election campaign that major and urgent cuts were needed, yet continued to call for a LibDem vote to prevent such cuts. Neither will the coalition change tack on its economic policies. 

The Scottish electorate is now very sophisticated. They know how to vote tactically to deliver their message. This time the message has been primarily aimed at the LibDems (and also at Labour), last year it was aimed at the Tories. Who is next in the firing line?