Our NHS. Why the Yes campaign must destroy a UK-wide service

With the polls coming together as the referendum approaches, it would seem a good time to analyse the importance to that debate of the controversial claims around our NHS

This is a difficult issue for the Yes campaign. Firstly the NHS is that rare thing, a UK-wide institution that is both respected by experts and valued and supported by people across the UK; obviously the complete antithesis of what Yes campaigners want to see. Secondly, it is funded as part of a system (Barnett) that makes at least some attempt to recognise differing demands of different parts of the UK and fund them accordingly. Again an example of an UK-wide positive process that would be killed stone dead by a Yes vote.

In short and in principle, the NHS is a good example of what Better Together should be trumpeting. Sharing UK resources so that anyone in any part of the UK can receive treatment free at the point of delivery, wherever they need to receive it. Why BT hasn’t done so enough, we'll deal with in a minute.

Are the threats real?

The Yes campaign have to deal with the inevitable break up of our NHS that their aims predicate. To invent a back story for this split, a) they have tried to create an image of an irreparably damaged NHS South of the border, and b) argue that the only way out is to pull up the ladder, and abandon the rUK NHS. To do so they risk the claim that they will cut the 'hassle free access to specialist clinical facilities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland' that doctors put so much importance on, and abandon the collective creation, involvement and resourcing of our UK NHS.

So, if a successful UK-wide institution delivering services to us all is so clearly a problem it has to be denigrated. And not just for failings in England, but if possible how those failings will eventually reach across the border.

Eleanor Bradford of the BBC

So the targets picked on by the Yes campaign were Barnett and how it is threatened by English privatisation, and - when it quickly became clear via Eleanor Bradford amongst others, that privatisation itself threatens Barnett in no way - the overall impact of lowering levels of service in England and the knock-on damage to Scotland's Health Service.

What did SNP MPs think?

However, Yes have another problem with the 'impact of NHS privatisation on Scotland' argument. As is well known, SNP MPs do not (as a matter of principle) vote on legislation that has no impact in Scotland. But obviously, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (the main coalition legislation opening health care up to private commissioning) DOES impact, doesn't it? Everyone from Dr Philippa Whitford to Alex Salmond has

Dr Phillippa Whitford

told us so. However you'll look hard to find the SNP MPs voting against that bill (neither in the second nor the third reading!). Surely they couldn't have been under the impression its impact on Scotland would be non-existent (twice)? Hopefully, if a Labour government committed to repealing that law - as both Burnham and Miliband have committed to do - is returned in 2015, they won't make the same mistake again.

However, no matter what SNP MPs might think, the Yes campaign’s point about the privatisation of England's NHS does have an impact on Scotland and Scottish patients. Currently - although the NHS is run differently either side if the border - all UK patients are entitled to get the most appropriate care for their condition in the most appropriate venue. In some cases that means English specialist hospitals. That has been made clear by Sir Leonard Fenwick, the chief executive of the North East NHS foundation when he replied to Dr Whitford's bogus claims about cancer surgery in his area. A number of us also remember the emergency airlifts of Scottish patients suffering from swine flu, to a hospital in Leicester. The prospect of these areas of specialism down in England suffering because of the introduction of profit-driven, resource-undermining privatisation is very much something that we in Scotland should be concerned with. And we should be campaigning with our fellow NHS supporters across the UK to ensure that privatisation is stopped in its tracks and the Health and Social Care Act is repealed.

It is disappointing that Better Together seem to have been a) hypnotised by the 'Barnett myth' and b) hamstrung by the presence of parties representing the architects of this privatisation, and failed to highlight the REAL dangers to Scotland’s patients, but at least the Labour opposition at Westminster has made a clear commitment to repeal the odious Act.

Campaigning for the NHS across the UK

External support, or joint campaigning

We could still campaign in support of the English NHS in an Independent Scotland, of course, although we would a) then be offering solidarity to campaigners in a different country with a different healthcare system, and b) no longer have a right and a stake in a UK-wide NHS. Not impossible then, just unnecessarily more difficult.

And this leads to another objection that the Yes campaign has to challenge. The right of us all as patients to use the NHS across the UK would cease. Now, it is possible, even probable, that arrangements would be negotiated to allow continued access, but they would have to be created via some financial bargain, as Scottish and rUK populations would no longer be contributing to one cross border system.

Plus, of course, the real cast iron danger to any redistributive effect (however small) that exists in the Barnett formula doesn't come from English privatisation, or even from 'revenge plots' by Westminster politicians, but from a Yes vote! Separation of the nation, means separation of national healthcare systems, and separation of the tax and spend arrangements that fund them. So – no Barnett, no redistribution from a bigger pool to a smaller.

Our NHS, Our Campaign

So, while no one underestimates the danger to the NHS from privatisation, it is surely more likely to be defeated by working and campaigning together as part of our NHS, than by striking camp and stealing away into the night? An argument that can also, incidentally, be applied to many other pan-UK struggles and campaigns.

And ultimately this is why the break up of our NHS is quite so crucial to the Yes campaign. It is not just a successful practical service, it is also a symbol of a UK success with input from us all, and access for us all. Let's keep it that way. Vote No to continue and increase the campaign to defeat privatisation of our NHS - wherever that is threatened.

Serving us and boosting our economy - Public Ownership

In the wake of the Ed Miliband/Daily Mail saga, a blog from James Maxwell of the New Statesman has an interesting series of points to make on the difference between Milliband’s pledges on the UK stage and Salmond’s in Scotland.

His point is essentially that while Miliband is (possibly against his will) being forced to challenge the UK consensus that the the Tories, their coalition partners and New Labour have espoused for a number of decades now - that an unregulated private sector is the saviour of the UK economy and that there is no role for the state to intervene; here in Scotland - despite the opportunities offered for challenging this consensus by the independence referendum - Alex Salmond shows no sign of doing so. Indeed he points to many policies where the SNP have actually moved towards the UK consensus.

To be fair, he also points to a range of policies where the SNP and Scottish Government are still to the left of the Labour Party, but the difference in challenging ‘business and its vested interests’ is marked. 

  The Scottish government was almost alone in retaining close relationships with News International, when even their close political pals were abandoning them. They have consistently courted tax-dodging corporations like Amazon, and argued against state intervention to take our share of windfall profits by North Sea energy companies, or to freeze energy prices to the consumer.

And where is the evidence that these policies work? Ofgen warns of power black-outs by 2015 as a result of lack of investment in the privatised energy sector. Privatised rail has the highest subsidies in Europe – except where the publicly owned East Coast line has delivered almost £1billion in profit. A socially disastrous housing crisis has resulted from the inability of the private sector to provide affordable houses. Yet elsewhere in the world there is economic growth – and it is generally in those countries where there is a significant measure of public ownership and active public support for industry.

In this context Sunday’s conference taking place in Glasgow on the need for greater public input

into our economic life is remarkably appropriate. While few at the conference would put much faith in Miliband, the lack of arguments for increased public ownership that have come out of the ‘indyref’ debate despite the spectacular failure of privatised companies, will hopefully be rectified by an impressive range of speakers. Economists and researchers like the STUC’s Stephen Boyd, and UNISONScotland policy chief, Dave Watson will be joined by politicians from both Labour (Neil Findlay MSP) and the SNP (Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group). The conference will examine the evidence for successful public sector intervention, from the past and from the present, from the UK and from elsewhere in the world.

The conference is organised by the Morning Star’s Scottish Campaign Committee and takes place from 11 am at the STUC offices in Woodlands Road, Glasgow. Further details here.

Did Freedom of Information troubles tip the balance in EU advice U-turn?

In all the welter of comment on the current ‘scomnishambles’ or ‘advicis’ crisis in which the Scottish Government have embroiled themselves, I haven’t yet seen an analysis that looks at whether the withdrawal of their appeal to the Court of Session has a Freedom of Information rationale behind it, and in particular the role of the Deputy First Minister in the decision.

Nicola Sturgeon, wanting to
 avoid a fight on two fronts?

It is of course, entirely possible that the sudden withdrawal of the Scottish Government’s appeal against the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ruling, was due to the new Constitutional Supremo (Nicola Sturgeon) looking at the contradictions in their position solely from a Referendum Campaign perspective and deciding to ditch what was very likely to have become another failed appeal. After all the track record of the Scottish Government vs the (respective) Scottish Information Commissioners does not show a good strike record for the SG. 

As a lawyer, Ms Sturgeon cannot have relished going to the Court of Session to argue that the Government shouldn’t have to tell anyone whether they had obtained legal advice or not (not, you understand, what that advice was - the refusal to reveal that was already accepted by the SIC). Especially as it appears, they had not!!

So is it then a coincidence that Nicola Sturgeon, in the reshuffle, also inherited the responsibility for Freedom of Information? Or that this burden currently involves her trying to pilot a widely-criticised Amendment Bill through the Scottish Parliament? Or did the additional contradiction of trying to claim to be ‘improving’ the FOI legislation, while taking the Information Commissioner to court, add the final straw to this particular camel’s back?

Indeed the Amendment Bill itself isn’t getting the plain sailing that was envisaged by the Minister who introduced it (Brian Adam MSP). It has been widely criticised by a number of organisations including the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, the STUC and the Commissioner herself, and is shortly due to be debated at Stage 1 in the Parliament. The Finance Committee is currently considering its Stage 1 report. By the look of the evidence sessions, the new FOI supremo got a much harder time than her civil servants had prepped her for - and from some of her own side! 

The SNP reshuffle of committee appointments, hasn’t assisted the Bill’s progress much, although Bruce Crawford’s appointment onto Finance is widely seen as an attempt to shepherd the Bill through. Interestingly the other new SNP appointment is Jean Urquhart MSP. Her commitment to openness is well-known. Will her recent resignation from the SNP group mean the shortest ever residence on a parliamentary committee?

At the bottom of this row are three issues: 

1. That the Bill does not address the main problem of FOI - the increasing use of non-public bodies (private contractors, housing associations, voluntary sector bodies and arms-length organisations - ALEOs) to deliver public services, resulting in the removal of FOI rights from the public.
2. How the law should ensure that such bodies are automatically added.
3. The attempted introduction of a further ‘absolute’ (ie non-challengeable) exemption covering communications with the monarch or the heir to the throne.

Given that the previous (minority) SNP government had at least started to address the first two issues when they dropped it prior to the last election, campaigners were surprised and disappointed that when the now majority, government found time to introduce new legislation, it failed to deal with them.

After FOI defeat over the financial implications of Local Income tax; the embarrassment of the row over disclosing whether the Scottish Government recommended Brian Souter for honours, and now the climb down over EU legal advice, it seems that Nicola Sturgeon is well-versed in the dictum - if you’re in a hole, stop digging! 

"I'll do it again, you know."

However her boss today claims that he would again refuse to reveal whether he had advice in the future. A statement that appears only too obviously to be a return to the bad old days of arrogance that Messrs Pringle & Co have been trying to move him away from. It is also a very different approach from his deputy. So much so, that it raises speculation about who took the decision to drop the appeal, and whether both the FM and the DFM agreed with it! I guess any such division won’t be revealed either!

In these circumstances it also becoimes interesting to watched the progress of the FOI Amendment Bill. The Stage 1 report is in discussion, a parliamentary debate approaches. Might there still be twists and turns ahead in what the Government obviously hoped would be a technical, tidying-up bill?

Faint scratching noises as the bottom of the barrel is scraped

As the sons set on Rupert Murdoch’s empire (ⓒGeorge Galloway), perhaps the most unedifying sight in a thoroughly unedifying political arena is the view of Alex Salmond’s apologists attempting to shift blame by pointing at Blair, Thatcher, Brown, Cameron and their past courting of the media godfather. 

On blogs and on networking sites, aides and supporters of the isolated Salmond have been using the ‘they all did it’ argument in frantic attempts to distract attention away from the fact that they didn’t all do it, and in fact no one did it at the same time and in such a way as the dear leader.

Of course it is true that party leaders at Westminster and Holyrood have much to answer for in the shameless cultivating of support from Murdoch’s tabloids. And some people have been warning for some time - back at least to Thatcher in the UK - that this is a subversion of democracy. Often this has been at much risk to their own careers and private life. Indeed, Tom Watson MP has been one of those politicians who has ploughed a lonely and risky furrow in opposing the power of the Murdochs, often in opposition to his own whips office and party hierarchy. The least he deserves is a serious hearing when he suggests methods of lancing the boil, rather than Salmond’s curt dismissal that he ‘does not need any lectures from Tom Watson’. Recent experience - not least the revelations of phone hacking of Scottish politicians and media figures - suggests otherwise.

Of course, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report was prepared by politicians, and will be subject to partisan views. But Alex is a politician and his supporters are no strangers to partisan views. Mind you, I’m not sure how many of them will be too keen on his refusal even to back the majority view of that report and to throw in his lot with the Tory minority in failing to condemn Mr Murdoch’s ‘fitness to run a media empire’, In the absence of a BSB takeover to lobby for, maybe defending Murdoch on this will be a sufficient ‘quid pro quo’?

'Is anyone watching?

For despite SNP activists attempts to fling mud  (apparently being photographed reading the Sun equates to writing messages of support for it and leaking the date of the referendum to it), there is a huge difference between the actions of Thatcher, Blair, Cameron et al and that of Alex Salmond. It is this. Salmond’s activities are taking place now. After the revelations of the Millie Dowler and other phone hackings, after the exposure of editorial complicity in police bribery, and after every leader in the rest of UK politics has realised the damage their associations with NI were doing (even Jeremy Hunt had the grace to hide behind a tree!), Mr Salmond scheduled new meetings with the tycoon, and made it clear he was open for a closer relationship. 

And the lack of understanding, attempts to excuse the inexcusable, to brazen it out, and to fall into the age-old nationalist rant of ‘blame Labour’, is what will cause the damage. Oh, this might be seen as still significantly a debate amongst the chattering classes, but (in particular) the hacking of a dead schoolgirl’s phone will always make sure that the distaste for Mr Murdoch and his editorial placepersons spreads wider than that.

It is a shame that the many good people in the SNP remain so quiet on this one. Party discipline is normally something to be recognised and even applauded, but not when something as wrong as this is going on (as Alan Cochrane said the other day in the Telegraph). The normally sure-footed SNP machine has mishandled this one, and mishandled it badly. The problem with elevating leaders to semi-divine status, is that their feet of clay all too often melt!

Tak a long spoon…

Tom Watson MP was at the Glasgow Libraries' Book Festival, 'Aye Write'  last night. He was talking about his long (and at times scary) campaign to expose the over powerful ‘Sir’ Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire, News International.

He came across as a generally sincere and likable backbencher, with principles. One of which was that the closeness of the Murdoch media with politicians and the police bordered (!) on corruption. As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee - he loves films and football! - he took a particular interest in the media. He had also had previous experiences with the Murdoch press, who have doorstepped him, put a private eye on to follow him, raked about in his (and his neighbours) dustbins regularly, and (by admission from a News International journalist) had Rebekah Brooks out to get him, since he resigned as a Defence Minister and ‘damaged her Tony’.

His presentation last night was a lesson in warnings for Alex Salmond. Apart from the admissions of illegal payments to the police, hacking into news subject’s phones on an ‘industrial scale’ and muckraking journalism, he believes that News International had become too powerful in terms of media ownership in the UK, and that Prime Minister after Prime Minister either courted or went in fear of Murdoch.

The fact that he includes in this litany everyone from Margaret Thatcher onwards, and does not spare his own party leaders means, I think, that his warning to Alex Salmond last night (and again in todays Daily Record column) should be taken very seriously. He admits to having admired Salmond and his aptitude to ‘tell the truth to power’. He said he was very surprised that Salmond leapt straight into private meetings with ‘Sir’ Rupert, as one Scottish Government communication erroneously called him. Writing a tribute to the launch of the ‘Sun on Sunday’ in its first issue and allowing the paper to ‘scoop’ the referendum date have tied the first minister into the News International octopus as surely as Andy Coulson’s appointment has done with David Cameron.

It will come back to haunt him. Unlike David Cameron, Alex Salmond’s snuggle up to the old media fox, comes at a time when his papers are under a number of criminal investigations - one by Strathclyde Police. It is in the middle of the Leveson inquiry, which is showing signs of probing even deeper; and a variety of other groups are asking queries about whether the Murdoch clan in general are ‘fit and proper people’ to run media companies.

Should the results of the Leveson Inquiry and/or the corruption inquiries prove to be as damaging as they could be, then the mealy-mouthed excuses of the First Minister’s spokesperson that it is ‘all about jobs’, will be exposed as dangerous delusion. It already seems that it is more likely all about getting the Murdoch media to give Eck their support, as Rupert (I can’t help remembering Denis Potter’s name for his tumour) casts about for some damage to do to the British state that has (finally) turned on him. As Tom Watson said ‘One thing’s for sure, Murdoch is not doing this for the good of Scotland or the Scottish people.’

It is slightly surprising that an experienced campaigner like Salmond (and even more so the SNP media machine that surrounds him) would go down the same road as Blair and Cameron before him. Especially after the experiences of those associations. But he does have previous in cosying up to tycoons. Rupert Murdoch, however,  is not Brian Souter or  even Donald Trump. Tak’ a long spoon? I suggest a ten foot tarry bargepole might be more appropriate.

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.

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?

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.

Question Time cocks it up again

Yet again the beleaguered BBC programme Question Time has shown us the reason why it might be a good idea for it to be produced outside London. The bland and supercilious response of the BBC and its flagship current affairs programme demonstrate exactly why the programme is no longer fit for purpose in the modern Britain.

To claim that the programme retains balance, because the ‘main parties’ had representation, misses the whole point. One was a candidate in an election and none of his opponents were given the opportunity to be there. The voters of that election received the broadcast. That is clearly against the guidelines that the BBC itself purports to operate under.

It is possible to overstate this, however. It isn’t an anti-democratic plot. It certainly isn’t a deliberate ploy to boost Alex Salmond. The other parties could, if they wished, have resolved the matter quickly by telling their invited representatives (and any substitutes) to withdraw from the programme. This was never going to happen - after all if they were prepared to sit on a panel with Nick Griffin, Alex Salmond was hardly going to be more objectionable!

But it is symptomatic of the real problem with this show, as was the reverse problem of Nicola Sturgeon being gagged by David Disdainful, back in October when the show apparently came from Glasgow. There is no understanding (nor is there any wish to understand) that the UK is now a multi-national entity, and to reflect that. As it was once said of then Tory Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, ‘He is both too ignorant of the problem and too arrogant to care.” Any of us who have worked for the Scottish arm of a UK body knows exactly the issue. 

The SNP too, in gloating over the discomfiture of the ‘unionist’ parties, would do well to not to throw too many stones as their own glass house has been upset by this before, and will be again (General Election Leader’s Debates anyone?).

But the sooner that Question Time’s production is moved away from London (or the ROSEland hinterland) the more likely that this problem will be addressed. If that means also jettisoning the current producer and chair, so much the better.