News from nowhere - Stop Barroso?

Who will be the next President of the European Commission? While this question may not occupy the collective mind of a continent more pressed with unemployment and the credit crunch, it's certainly set the tongues wagging in the corridors of European power. What should have been a cakewalk for the ex-Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Barroso (already President for these past five years) - he was unanimously reappointed by the 27 Member State Governments in the Council - has suddenly turned into a rather anxious ratification process in the European Parliament, due to the obstinate resistance of several of the European Parliament political groups.

They have already scored one success: they postponed the vote which was supposed to take place in July until the autumn. Now, this week in Strasbourg, the critical vote will take place: Barroso must win a majority to secure his position for the next five years, and to become the first President to be re-elected since the great Jacques Delores.

Why the brouhaha? Those opposing Barroso (the Socialists, the Greens, the Left and most of the Liberals) have a solid argument: "Top politicians should not be reappointed without taking stock of their performance." Too often the selection of (technically speaking) the most powerful person in the EU is reduced to a game of Buggins's Turn: the key is to rotate between a conservative from a small country and a socialist from a large country, a la the process I described last time. So Jacques Delores (France, Socialist) was followed by Jacques Santer (Luxembourg, Christian Democrat), Romano Prodi (Italy, Democrat) and Barroso (Portugal, Christian Democrat - he referred to himself as not a conservative but a "centre right democrat").

This, to put it mildly, does not always produce optimal results: the Santer Commission was sacked in 1999 for financial corruption. Furthermore, this is the election of the person driving the European policy agenda for the next half decade: surely there should be a serious democratic debate before the person is chosen? Barroso's "election manifesto" is dull, unimaginative, and tries to be all things to all men. For many MEPs, Barroso simply does not measure up to their expectations.

The drive against Barroso has been led mainly by two major parliamentary characters: Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-President of the Greens and formerly of 1968 Paris barricade fame, and Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberal ALDE group, and ex-Belgian Prime Minister. They have two main arguments. The first, mainly pushed by Cohn-Bendit, is that Barroso has been too right wing: he has pushed the single market, economic liberalisation agenda ahead of any action on the environment and social justice.

According to the "Stop Barroso" website, "Barroso has misappropriate the "Better Regulation" agenda to promote deregulation is the name of competitiveness...Overstepping the Commission's remit, Barroso is trying to force through authorisation of GM crop varieties in the EU...a refocusing of the Lisbon Strategy orientated exclusively at a short sighted growth and job approach, putting the environment in the waiting room..." Barroso has promoted nuclear power, refused for years to regulate financial markets, and tried to force through privatisation of public services through the Services Directive. With the financial and climate crises in full swing, Barroso's response has been tepid at best and outright negligent at worst.

The second argument accuses Barroso, not for what he has done, but for what he has not done. For politicians like Verhofstadt, the European Union simply has not done enough under Barroso's stewardship to tackle the problems of our time and to assert its power in the world: instead, Barroso has been the lackey of the Member States, and has thus allowed Europe to fragment and lose focus. As ALDE declare:

"The European Union faces a choice. Either it takes a step backwards, becomes a bureaucratic and loose confederation of diverging countries and gives up being an international heavyweight, or we decide to move forward, to become a stronger union speaking with one voice in the world, convinced of our European values and standards."

For Cohn-Bendit and Verhofstadt, this means more common European policies: a common European recovery plan, common defence policies, even a common foreign policy. Barroso is simply not up to this task: Europe needs a strong leader independent of the Member States. The implications for the balance of power in Europe are obvious and a little ominous.

Will they succeed? Probably not. The "Stop Barroso" brigade always faced an uphill battle, against the unanimous assent of the Member States, and the support for Barroso by the right wing political groups. They have also made a number of errors. First, they did not put forward an alternative candidate. It is a little difficult to emphasise Barroso's negative qualities when there is no one to compare him to, and the possibility exists that a replacement for Barroso may be worse.

Second, lay the focus, not on the merits of the argument per se, but on procedure: specifically whether to vote on Barroso under the Treaty of Nice or (if it passes) Lisbon. This may have been a useful delaying tactic, but it smothers the debate in fiendish complexity and makes it completely inaccessible to the average European. It has also resulted in splits within the "Stop Barroso" camp on the correct line to take on procedure, which has actually thrown many Liberals back into Barroso's big tent.

Finally, it is incorrect to pin all the ills in today's EU on one man. The structure of the EU makes it inevitable that the President of the Commission will to a certain extent be the errand boy of the Member States, who do after all have to approve all legislation. There is no point in the President pushing an agenda which will be rejected by the nations and regions, which are the components of the EU. If the agenda of the EU leans right, that is probably because most of the current governments in Europe are right wing, not because of Barroso. We have a Europe of the nations, not a European super state (whatever the Daily Mail may say): most people want it this way, and replacing one man will not change it.

The case against Barroso can be seen here.

Barroso's platform can be seen here.


Daniel Wylie

News from nowhere - Stop Barroso?

Why Elected Mayors Matter - A View from North America

This blog kickstarts our discusion on elected mayors so please feel free to post your comments on the efficacy of elected mayors for Scottish cities. Further info can be accessed here.

-------------------------------------------------

While not always a positive measure of success, an interesting observation on the importance of Mayors can be seen in children’s cartoons on television. A number of cartoons features “The Mayor” – from “the Powder-Puff Girls,” to “Sponge Bob Square Pants” and “The Simpsons” cartoons, mayors are an accepted, expected and understood symbol of the life of a city.

And not just for children

In multiple polls and interviews, children and adults overwhelmingly can’t remember who their elected representatives are. U.S. Senators, U.S. Members of Congress, state legislative representatives all draw empty stares and occasional shocking wild guesses. However, an overwhelming number of respondents in America consistently seem to know at least two of their elected officials – they know who the President is, and they know who the mayor is.

Why is this true for mayors?

The services local government provides – the basic nuts and bolts services of what matters in daily life – from parks, public safety, water, sewer, streets, electricity, local transit and many others are provided by cities. Mayors are the heads of the organization that matters most to the majority of residents.

When it comes to the things most people need, depend on and see daily, those services are provided by local government. Local government is the form of government seen and touched by the majority of Americans and because it is so accessible, it is also perceived to be the most accountable.

Unlike the President, most mayors are seen locally throughout their communities frequently and people have almost unlimited access to their mayors. From the smallest city to the largest city I have worked with (Sacramento has a population of 465,000), all the mayors I work with all shop in grocery stores and farmer’s markets; ate in local restaurants and stood in line at retail stores. All were easily recognized and almost everyone felt comfortable approaching and talking with their mayor.

Allow me a moment to digress and explain that there are several governance differences in how cities operate in the US. Without getting bogged down in too much detail, there is a strong mayor system; a strong mayor - strong city manager model; and a model where the office of mayor rotates annually between elected councilmembers and the City Manager has the lead role in the administration of the city. Regardless of the city structure, the mayor is seen as the voice, face and leader of the city and the larger community outside of the geographic borders or the incorporated city.

There are layers of local government in the US – counties, cities and elected special districts (water districts, school districts, transit districts). With all the layers of local government, people look to one person to be the voice of their community, and regardless of the size of a city, that person is the mayor.

In times of celebration, tragedy and in moments of community challenges – the spokesperson for the city and often for an entire region in the case of a large city is the mayor. It is expected and the presence and direction of the mayor can calm residents, provide information and consistently, regardless of whether that city is strong mayor modeled city or any of the other models of how cities operate.

An example of this is what happened in Sacramento when I was Chief of Staff to Mayor Heather Fargo on the terrible tragic day of September 11, 2001. After news of the attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon occurred, Sacramento’s Mayor, City Manager, Police and Fire Chiefs; our team rapidly had a press conference to have the Mayor go live on television with several other public officials and appropriate public safety staff to reassure the city and the entire Greater Sacramento region.

The mayor, as the most identifiable spokesperson, established calm by first recognizing the unprecedented tragedy that had occurred and asked residents to be calm by providing information. At the live press conference Mayor Fargo stated known facts at that moment (10:00 a.m. PDT) and reiterated several times that the city was fully in contact with all appropriate state and federal agencies. Other officials including the police and fire chiefs also spoke, but they reiterated the mayor’s message. The mayor promised and provided frequent updates as frequently as possible or necessary as news or information became available.

Not only was the mayor able to establish the key message that the city was connected and evaluating what it needed to do but also played a crucial role in preventing violence. During the subsequent press conferences, the mayor talked directly about the safety of Sacramento’s Muslim community and other racially and culturally diverse at risk to be potentially targeted for retaliation due to the shock of huge tragedy.

Mayor Fargo reminded all residents that Sacramento is a racially, culturally and religiously diverse city and any threats of violence would not be tolerated and aggressively responded to by the Sacramento Police Department. As the recognized leader of the city, the message was repeated many times and there were no reported instances of racial or cultural violence in the days following September 11, 2001.

An elected mayor is a voice for the community and when voters believe city government is accessible and accountable, it is largely because of the accessibility of the mayor, city council and the immediacy of services provided by cities. The accountability and trust comes from the fact that an elected mayor has to go before the voters for re-election. The belief in direct accountability comes from the direct availability of voters to vote for another mayor and in some cities to also recall an elected mayor under specific instances.

I now work with the League of California Cities and in the cities I work with – the smallest, Point Arena, has a population of 495 and the largest, Santa Rosa, a population of 156,268 – mayor’s are known, accessible and the best symbol of all that is positive about direct elections and a connection voters understand. Elected mayors are sometimes celebrities, sometimes have to deliver bad news, and are frequently seen in the aisles of grocery stores with melting ice cream as they are way-laid by residents complaining or unhappy about a city service or activity. But it is that melted ice-cream moment that captures the importance elected mayors provide to their residents and why local government polls so high in national and state polls for trust and accountability.

Yes, the cartoon version of mayor in “The Simpsons,” Mayor Quimby, is a stereotype of a corrupt, big city mayor. But even in this popular television city, everyone knows the mayor and it is the mayor who is at every important event occurring in the fictional American City.


Chuck Dalldorf
Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities

For all the talk of green shoots and France and Germany exiting the recession the fact of the matter in Scotland, notwithstanding Edinburgh's strong performance, is that recovery is a long way off. And, even when we do return to the days of economic growth it will be slow and protracted.

Figures released recently paint a bleak picture, particularly in relation to unemployment which as we know is a lagging indicator. Official data shows that UK unemployment increased by 220,000 in three months to June, reaching a 14 year high.

There is a distinct possiblity of another "lost generation" as illustrated by the fact that there was an increase of more than 50,000 under 25's without work, bringing the total in June to 928,000. As David Blanchflower stated in the Guardian today, "this is not a good time to be young and looking for a job". Importantly, these figures do not include the thousands upon thousands of individuals who entered the contracting labour market after graduating. The levels of youth unemployment in Britain exceeds that of France, Germany and other EU member states.

In response the UK Government pointed to their new "Backing Young Britain" campaign which is "bringing businesses and public and voluntary sectors together to ensure that the valuable skills and experience of our young people aren't being wasted"



Undeniably we all have a role to play in preventing the hopelessness and despair which characterized the lives of many young people in the last recession. At the Centre we are currently re-working our internship programme to provide policy-making opportunities to those very graduates who are struggling to obtain unemployment or experience.

Further details will be posted very shortly.

Prof Richard Kerley on the Scottish Govt's Strategic Objectives

In the recent edition of Public Servant Scotland vice principal of QMU and CSPP director, Professor Richard Kerley, questioned whether or not the Scottish Government’s five strategic objectives assist the public sector in “making strategic choices”.

Since the election of the SNP Government in 07’ the strategic objectives (wealthier and fairer; safer and stronger; smarter; greener; and healthier) have become political commandments across Scottish politics. As Prof Kerley says, “All policies and programme proposals would be judged against the extent to which they helped to achieve these objectives”.

Kerley makes several observations about these objectives. Firstly, he correctly points out that by the time we reach May 2011 (date of next parliamentary elections) the Scottish Govt’s response when asked to judge the strategic objectives (SO) will be “too soon to tell”. They are “long term objectives that do not lend themselves to short term judgment”.

And secondly, if the SO are a “pretty good shortlist” and represent “broadly shared desirable outcomes” do they help anyone in “making strategic choices”? Does it set a broad direction for all public agencies and stakeholders to follow? Kerley remains skeptical:

“Just calling something strategic does not make it so…. Decision makers need guidance - not rote templates - as to how they make choices between various options for resource allocation. Without such clear guidance then the game to be played by all organisations will be how they can best present their special case as meeting these objectives”.

Clearly he has a point. The dominant language is the SO with its accompanying 15 national outcomes and 45 national indicators. Public agencies’ proposals are awash with this hegemonic discourse, revealing an “almost hypnotic quality”.

But is this a bad thing? Simplifying government speak, indeed creating a degree of uniformity, isn’t this to be welcomed? Undeniably Kerley is correct - decision makers do need more guidance. But if the strategic framework set out by the Govt is appropriate and fitting shouldn’t it remain in place regardless of which party holds the levers of power? Semantic maneuverings aside, could any political party in Scotland reject the Govt’s single overarching purpose to increase sustainable economic growth?

Of course they could. Our combative political, dog-eat-dog political culture is in anathema to such consensual notions as the first ten years of the Scottish Parliament validate. The existence of a minority government seems to have affected this social fact little which is deeply unfortunate as the example of Finland demonstrates the value of cross-party consensus.

During the 1990’s Finland was transformed from an “inward looking agricultural economy” into an “open, internationally competitive and technology oriented economy, with a solid macro-economic stability and an exemplary social safety” (Angel Gurcia, OECD Secretary General). Central to this transformation was an innovation based economic strategy and strong political leadership.

Let us focus only on the former. Cohesion between Government and opposition parties (and also between industry and workers) contributed massively to economic recovery and sustained growth. A cross-party commitment was made by all - in the depths of the crisis - as they put the country’s economic woes before their political ambitions, thus creating a general economic policy “centred on the growth of its telecommunications cluster”.

The contrast with developments north and south of the border in the UK could not be starker.

“Holyrood and the search for Scotland’s soul” (ps. it isn’t at the bottom of a tin of Tunnocks tea cakes)

While the Scottish Parliament was celebrating its tenth birthday BBC Scotland ran a series of events (and a poll) to commemorate this occasion. For this they should be commended because ordinarily they are a real lack of political programmes. Of course, it shouldn’t take ten years of devolution to prompt this but they do have to keep space for tragic 1980’s (90’s if we are lucky) B Movies.

The Scottish public were spoiled for choice; well those who were up late enough to have their devolution fix. One programme - grandly titled “Holyrood and the search for Scotland’s soul”- deserves a degree of scrutiny. With such an ostentatious title I was expecting it to be narrated by Sean Connery or Ewan McGregor; maybe even Tom Devine. Imagine my shock when I saw Brian Taylor going into a kilt shop in the opening scene - I feared the worse.

Within minutes I was squirming. Already it had eclipsed my fears, a feat in itself, with Taylor having dished out Tunnock’s Tea Cakes and Irn Bru to encourage Stirlingers to come up and share their views on devolution. I tightly grabbed my cushion for emotional support knowing what was coming next. Yes, the piper arrived and a young girl began “spontaneously” (aye right) dancing.

Now I was genuinely scared, angry even. If I could have swore half as well as Malcolm Tucker from In the Loop I would have. Yet like a masochist Scot I kept watching.

Actually, this turned out to be the lowest, cringe worthy moment in the programme. What followed were some interviews with political heavyweights like Tony Blair, Alex Salmond, and Gordon Brown etc. Brown smiled (I clutched the cushion ever more closely) as he skilfully avoided saying “Scotland” too much. Like the boogie man, Middle England is never far away.

Taylor’s search for Scotland’s soul (sorry I laugh every time I type this) took him to foreign shores. The key question this cake-eating, cowboy hat wearing, singing visit addressed was this: do we need independence to express our Scottishness or can we accommodate it within the union?

On impendence he went to Norway (cake-eating) and on unionism he went to Texas (singing and cowboy hat), America. Needless to say, this fact finding mission produced diametrically opposed views but it was refreshing to remove the debate from its often parochial anchor. The visit to Norway, in particular, provided food for thought, no pun intended.

On returning home Taylor outlined Holyrood’s major achievements. It was the usual list: thou shalt ban smoking; thou shalt reject tuition fees; thou shalt introduce free personal care and so on. One wonders when these successes will be recited in an evangelical chant at Time for Reflection.

I was just about to channel hop when Taylor said that the different policy focus in Scotland was because of a different identity and that these legislative achievements (particularly the smoking ban) consolidated our “pride, self-belief and confidence”. This caught my attention. My mind wandered to the de-industrialised landscape of urban Scotland. This gloomy reality and Taylor’s assertion were entirely at odds.

They were other examples of Taylor’s questionable conclusions. In 2003 Holyrood “spoke to the soul of Scotland” regarding the Iraq War and in 2007 the Parliamentary elections were a “battle for the soul of Scotland”. Without question the former was a “key maturing process” for the Parliament and of course there was a strong anti-war movement in Scotland. But a country’s soul, if it has one, is collective and has to speak for all of the country. Clearly this was not the case. Iraq provoked democratic protest but the vast majority were too enmeshed in Scotland’s hyperreal popular culture to notice. And the election was most definitely not a battle for the soul of Scotland. Like the 09’ European elections outlining a verdict on the current Prime Minister was high on the agenda for voters.

Yet, my contention with the documentary runs deeper than mere disagreements on certain issues; it’s philosophical. Taylor’s programme was rooted in the belief that: (1) a coherent Scottish identity exists and (2) a political institution can satisfy our soul. Let’s focus on point one and disregard the other (with a nod and a wink to Max Weber) as a political elites’ pipe dream. Taylor is certainly not alone in making these conclusions about Scottish identity – a certain SNP come to mind for example.

For Taylor a modern Scottish identity consists of fairness, equality and justice. Resisting the desire to shout “long live the revolution” and “death to the ancien regime”, one wonders how accurate this characterisation is. Isn’t fairness incompatible with a decade long growth in income inequality? Doesn’t the remaining vestiges of patriarchy strike at the heart of our aspiration to be an equal nation? And the continuing growth of fuel poverty and the prevalence of slopping out in our jails are surely incommensurable with justice. Right?

My purpose here is not to ethically proselytise about the state of Scottish democracy. I’ll leave that to our “transparent” elected representatives. I only wish to shatter the illusion he and others wish to create by shining a brief light on the yawning gap between rhetoric and reality. Scottish identity, as I see it, is inherently relational. More often than not, our policy makers have largely reacted to New Labour policies down south while the Barnett Formula has allowed the Parliament the great luxury of only having to bother with one half of the balance sheet.

Indeed, a binary narrative permeates Scottish identity and our politics. One side is good (Scotland), the other bad (UK). For example: Iraq, smoking, education, health, energy, social care and so on. This trend demonstrates a remarkable ability by the Scottish political elite - not that they are along in this, for e.g. the Cold War - to invoke implicit moral arguments.

Scottish identity is not simply relational, however. It is deeply fragmented and inchoate. At best it is in flux; at worst a caricature of itself. Unfortunately my belief in the later continues to gain credence when I look at the Homecoming Scotland campaign to attract the Diaspora. It is all kilts, whisky and Rabbie Burns, a sure sign of the increasing commodification of Scottish culture. To be fair it is a tourist drive mind you.

Holyrood and the search for Scotland’s soul had good intentions. I don’t doubt that. But, if ever there was a programme which illustrated the shared assumptive world between the political elites and the culminating disconnect from ordinary Scots’ it was this. In Orwell’s words, it gave “solidity to pure wind”.


Barry McCulloch
Policy Officer

“Serving Scotland Better: Scotland & the UK in the 21st Century”: Briefing Note

Introduction

It has been some time since the publication of the Calman Commission’s final report. 269 pages long and costing the tax payer somewhere in the region of £500,000 (as has the National Conversation) it has produced fierce debate across the political spectrum. Much of the contention surrounds its main proposal to devolve further fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament (from here on in the “Parliament”): that is, increasing the Parliaments’ tax varying powers.

Commentators, politician and journalists alike flocked to comment. The words ‘authoritative’ and ‘intelligent’ were never far away, notwithstanding the barrage of criticism too. The Centre deliberately held back from rushing an analysis of this important work, believing that it’s always best to let emotions settle before attempting to objectively assess a piece of work that seeks to alter how our country is run.

Let us offer a few important words of caution prior to the analysis. The Commission’s report is not an objective assessment of the devolution settlement in Scotland. The aim of this report, as Sir Kenneth Calman stated on Newsnight Scotland, is to “strengthen the parliament, help it serve Scotland better and maintain and develop the union.”

The important term here is “develop the union” which naturally necessitates the exclusion of the independence option. Remember this commission was created by a Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander MSP, as a response to the SNP’s National Conversation.

Now this is not a political point; far from it in fact. We only suggest that if it was truly objective it would have reviewed all options. The participants in this analysis are influenced by their beliefs, values and unionist prejudices. Hence, this document is as much a declaration of values and principles as it is an objective assessment of devolution. See this is an intellectual warning of sorts.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis of the report but an overview, one that merely scratches the surface.

Analysis

The Commission has three key aims which would create a Parliament to:

1. “serve the people of Scotland better”.
2. “improve [its] financial accountability”.
3. “secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

These aims are looked at via several chapters. We will focus on the social union; the economic union; and other recommendations for strengthening devolution.

Social Union

Considerable attention is placed on outlining “Scotland’s place in the UK” where they seek to validate the positive and popularly backed relationship Scotland has had with the rest of the UK throughout its history; notwithstanding the occasions where conflict and tension has been the norm. Put simply, they seek to promulgate a 21st century version of unionism. Correctly they argue that issues, interests and values are shared throughout the UK. Importantly they state that:

“The evidence confirms that it is possible to have a distinct Scottish political identity, and differing Scottish policy choices, without undermining the essential unity of the United Kingdom in relation to matters that are critical to all its people.”

Undeniably, the “Scottish Parliament is here to stay” but whether or not it has “embedded itself in… the consciousness of the people of Scotland is debatable, particularly when seen in the context of a recent BBC Scotland poll which found that 46% of Scots think devolution has made “no difference” to their lives.

In reality the Parliament has been more readily accepted by the political elites/”usual suspects”, a view validated by looking more closely at the poll. The responses to the question: “Scotland's devolved parliament has been in existence since 1999. Do you think devolution has been a good thing for Scotland, a bad thing, or has it made no difference one way or the other” have a clear and identifiable trend. Those who think it has been a “good thing” are located in the higher social classes (AB and C1, 51%), whilst those who think it has made “no difference” can be found in the lower social class (C2 and DE, 53% and 56% respectively).

Lindsay Paterson provides further proof of this claim. Citing statistics from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2007, Paterson affirms that “professionals are much more impressed by the Parliaments’ record… [they have] become its public bulwark”. Indeed, 67% of those working in high professional/managerial occupations thought the Parliament was giving people a greater say in Government in contrast to 34% of those in semi-routine/routine occupations.

There is no doubt that they are serious question marks over the report’s claim that the “verdict of the people of Scotland is that… devolution… has been a remarkable and substantial success”. The evidence with which they base these claims on is thin because the data is not representative of the population.

Hidden away in footnote 2.4 (p58) the authors reveal that: (1) respondents were “self-selecting”; and (2) the group “constitute a non-random sample [that] is not… representative of public opinion”. Point one is particularly important if we bear in mind that predominantly it is the usual suspects who respond to open consultations; not your average citizen (see Paterson 2009).

Hence, the Commission can not legitimately extrapolate generalizations from the sample to the population. It may appear that we are being pedantic but this entire report is largely based upon the belief that devolution is perceived to be a success by the Scottish population. This belief, then, may well be a skewed interpretation of a (self) selected few.

Foreign Policy

The case, it seems, is closed here. The Commission’s argument that “all parts of the UK must be joined together for defence and national security” appears to be the orthodox view. Certainly, the BBC Scotland poll reaffirms this view with 63% responding that the UK Government “should make most of the important decisions for Scotland about defence and foreign affairs”. But is it? Clearly the foreign policy functions of the state are “integral to the effective functioning of the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation-state with international responsibilities”. This is beyond doubt.

What remains less clear is if this architecture is in the “best interests of all its [UK’s] citizens”. Two high profile examples illustrate that there is a philosophy developing in Scotland that markedly contrasts with the view south of the border. The first of which is the Iraq War in 2003. The Scottish Parliament witnessed some of its most relevant and emotional debates on this issue, while Scottish civil society demonstrated in its thousands against the military operation. Of course the anti-war marches were replicated and surpassed throughout the UK but no other devolved parliament witnessed such antipathy to the invasion.

Secondly, the nuclear arsenal at the heart of UK foreign policy during the Cold War and maintained today is flatly rejected by a growing number of Scots’, including the current Scottish Government. They reject the arsenal in principle, refuse to accept that the UK needs a nuclear deterrent in the post Cold War international system and believe that Trident should not be renewed nor placed at Faslane Naval Base.

Is the Commission correct to argue, then, that the UK should exercise defence and national security powers indefinitely? That devolution of this power “is undesirable in principle”? “That it is in the best interests of all its citizens?” It seems that the case is far from closed and that the debate over nuclear power (both military and civilian) will continue to escalate, particularly if the next UK Government is Conservative and the SNP win a second term in the Parliament. Indeed, it could be postulated that by advocating the security status quo this report would create a Parliament that did not “serve the people of Scotland better”.

Economic Union

Without doubt the key objective for the Commission was to create “better linkage between taxation decisions and spending decisions it makes”. It was this issue, this recommendation, which the report would be solely judged against. This proved to be the case. Amid the flurry of commentary it was as if the Commission’s report only contained one section on finance. Its recommendations were:

1. That the Parliament “should be able to determine a ‘Scottish rate’ of income tax applying to all rates, but should not be able to change the difference between the rates”. Thus giving the Parliament “some control over its total spending”.
2. That “Stamp Duty Land Tax, Aggregates Levy, Landfill Tax and Air Passenger Duty should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, again with a corresponding reduction in the block grant.”
3. That the Scottish Government be given the “capacity to borrow for capital investment on a prudential basis”.
4. That the Parliament strengthen the” intergovernmental arrangements to deal with finance”.

These recommendations were, not surprisingly, both applauded and attacked. For some it didn’t go far enough (for e.g. the Scottish Government) while for others it was a “road map for devolution mark two” (Annabel Goldie, Scottish Conservative leader). For us the recommendations represent something of a “half-way house”. We commend the report’s attempts to address the linkage between tax and spend and its attempts to create more financial accountability in the Parliament (not to mention the other suggestions – see below)

Yet, it doesn’t go far enough. Weighed under by the numerous party political concerns and the culminating need to compromise it retains the anachronistic Barnett Formula; a “block and formula arrangement… that is unique internationally” (p73). Its uniqueness is not a source of pride, however, and ranks alongside the UK’s unelected House of Lords and its relic of an electoral system, FPTP, as a regressive feature of British politics.

The Commission hedges its bets on modifying the much maligned Barnett Formula - which will “still provide a significant share of the funding’ for the Parliament” - by “introducing a new Scottish Variable Rate (SVR) of income tax… which should apply to the basic and higher rates of income tax, building on the statutory framework that already exists for collecting a different rate in Scotland from the rest of the UK (p7, 10). Of course this power, as set out in Part IV of the Scotland Act 1998, has never been used. The authors admit that: “the SVR has not been successful in creating financial accountability”. Not surprisingly, the MSPs have shied away from utilising this power perceiving it as ‘electoral suicide’.

All of this begs the question why the Commission chose to retain the Barnett Formula? In the executive summary the authors’ state:

“Because it reflects the principle of the social Union, that taxes are pooled together and shared out in the form of a grant according to need” [and because it has] “no remit in relation to the rest of the UK”.

In considering why the SVR has not been used they also reach these conclusions (p79):

(1) There hasn’t been a “political consensus in the Parliament to exercise the power”.
(2) The last ten years witnessed “rapidly growing public spending” via strong economic growth. This may have suggested that “further growth from additional taxation was unnecessary”.
(3) Efficiency and simplicity of the grant-based system has “many practical advantages”.
(4) “The start up cost of the SVR for the first time” would have been “substantial” in comparison to the revenue which might be generated.
(5) A decision not to use the SVR “has no effect” on the Parliamentary budget.

Other implicit justifications can be found in the make up of the Commission itself. The Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour may agree on rejecting independence but they disagree quite vociferously on the future of devolution in Scotland. It’s well known, for example, that the Lib Dems are proponents of federalism while it is far from certain that a new Conservative Government (if they are successful in the next General Election) would deliver on the report.

Our point is this: the entire report, particularly on financial matters, was arrived at through compromise. It is only by compromising that the Commission could speak with one voice. This need to compromise, it could be argued, had a detrimental effect on the financial recommendations of the report. But more than anything the single most important factor in only modifying Barnett is that:

“…the balance between these conflicting principles and the combination of funding mechanisms to be used should be determined not by the technical considerations of funding mechanisms, but by the constitutional objectives that the funding system
is designed to support.” (Underline added)

Here is conclusive proof that the report’s overriding aim is not to improve the Parliament’s financial accountability but to “secure the position of Scotland within the UK”. Of course this is no surprise to anyone - the report was a response to the rise in support for independence. Yet, one can still be surprised, perhaps even angered, that a document that was publically funded subjugates any factor that doesn’t serve their raison d’être: namely, maintaining the union.

A salient criticism of this report was published in an open letter to The Scotsman by a group of seven respected academics. They conclude that the “fiscal reforms proposed by the Calman Commission are at best an opportunity missed and at worst a recipe for economic instability in the future”. The authors’ continue:

“Only under fiscal autonomy can the accountability of the Scottish Parliament properly be entrenched… The proposals will do little to enhance the ability of a Scottish government to introduce measures necessary to improve Scotland's underlying economic growth rate, or to balance the Scottish economy through good times and bad.”

The last point is worth stressing. The recent Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2007-08 (GERS) report illustrated that “estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £7.1 billion (6.3 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £6.4 billion (5.5 per cent of GDP)”. Clearly, tough decisions will have to be made if Scotland is going to recover from this recession, particularly when the deficit is likely to increase. The budgetary squeeze on the public sector will be severe.

Yet thus far the debate in the Scottish Parliament has centred on the £500m efficiency savings that the UK Government is imposing in Scotland. Largely they have swerved the important debate that has to be had on the state of our national economy and the cost of our public sector. And, who can blame them?

The Parliament is “not accountable for the total of their budget or how it is raised; it has no fiscal powers that can be used as policy instruments and it does not have a direct financial stake in the performance of the Scottish economy”. This leads the Commission to propose increased tax-varying powers to bring greater responsibility and accountability to the Parliament. But given the MSPs historical reluctance to use this power it can not be said with any certainty that they will find this greater ability to vary tax more appealing than before. Agreeing with the academics above, we maintain that the solution is full fiscal autonomy.

Strengthening Devolution

In addition to the above recommendations, the Commission also sought to devolve the following powers to the Scottish Parliament:

1. The administration of elections.
2. The regulation of airguns.
3. Regulation-making powers relating to drink-driving limits and national speed limits should be transferred to Scottish Ministers.

Naturally, these recommendations have been well received across the political spectrum. The first one in particular will be critical in atoning for the debacle that was the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary and Local Authority elections.

The Commission also proposed changes to the Parliament itself. One that stands out is the proposal to alter the bill process from three stages to four, allowing MSPs more time to reflect on newly made amendments made at stage three.

Nevertheless, the committee system remains largely unchanged albeit they were some recommendations (see 223). While the committee system is rightly acknowledged as being “generally effective”, it is highly questionable that it is still a “detailed scrutineer and an effective counterweight to the executive”. For a unicameral system like ours this is a serious concern. Indeed, any democratic system must have functioning checks and balances.

In the absence of a second chamber, the Consultative Steering Group (CSG) believed that “strong” committees would “rein in the government when necessary”. They anticipated that the committees would “initiate legislation, scrutinise and amend the Scottish executive’s proposals and have wide-ranging investigative functions”. Power-sharing too would be a central facet of the post-devolution parliamentary process.

Unfortunately there has been a notable schism between the ideals proposed by the architects and the practise of the committees themselves, as they always are. The scrutiny and legislative role of the committees have faced innumerable challenges throughout the last ten years. To name but a few, these are: (1) considerable time and resource pressures, particularly when compared to Westminster; (2) the lack of support from Government in drafting amendments and consequent executive dominance; (3) and innate partisanship.

Such challenges must be seen in context, however. The Scottish Parliament is not yet a teenager and its processes and deficiencies will most likely be refined through time. What Scotland has in place now is a vast improvement on what existed pre-devolution. And moreover, the inability of the Parliament (specifically the committees) to be an effective bulwark against executive dominance correlates with global trends. Since the dawn of the modern American (“imperial”) presidency, for instance, power has been firmly rooted in the executive branch.

Thus, rather than excessively criticising the Parliament for failing to live up to the CSG ideals one must perceive these principles “as ideals to work towards” (Carman and Shepherd, 1999: 27). The Commissions’ recommendations are prudent and will most likely result in an improved committee system. Still, if the committees’ remain unable to be a “detailed scrutineer and effective counterweight to the executive” a serious debate will have to take place if Scotland wishes to maintain a system that has functioning checks and balances.

What next?

The key issue now is whether or not the recommendations will be delivered before the next Westminster election by the current UK Labour Government. Thus far we have had mixed signals. The proposal was well received by the UK Government but one wonders whether or not such complex proposals could be realistically enacted in a year (or less), particularly as they attempt to steer their own democratic and banking reforms through Parliament. They may be “kicked into the long grass”; not out of reticence but purely because of the congested legislative timetable or because they are perceived to be a low priority.

The truth is we don’t know. On the one hand we have the Scottish Labour leader Ian Gray stating that the proposals are “complex” [and] will take some time to bring in”, while on the other hand we have other Unionist leaders (including Iain Gray) saying that they are “real momentum” behind these proposals. They hint that the recommendations will be “moved forward quite quickly” though one may reasonably wonder how valid this claim is when another mechanism (cross-party steering group) has been created to deliver these proposals.

All in all its business as usual in devolutionary politics - more smoke, more mirrors. What is irrefutable, however, is that this is an exciting time in Scottish politics, epoch defining even, as we seek to map out how devolution should develop after the Calman Commission. Yet the Scottish people remain the elephant in the room. Our elected representatives continue to affirm that Scots support this, that and everything but the truth is they don’t know - they assume through polls or sporadic consultation exercises/e-discussion forums that this is the case. Clearly, what is needed is a more inclusive, bottom up review of devolution where all Scottish citizens can have their say in the future of the country.

The time is ripe for a radical redistribution of power where it is truly shared between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Government. The Commission’s report is neither putting us on a motorway to independence nor a lasting defence of the Union. This particular road less travelled is to a different place - it is called Federalism.

Now is the time that we fulfilled, or at least attempted to, the participative ideals set out in the CSG. The new “devolution default” position is clear: unless there is a compelling national interest not to, all power should be devolved. This isn’t grandiose “new politics”. This is democracy.


Barry McCulloch, Policy Officer