Independent Budget Review

Of course, it is very unlikely that you missed the publication of the IBR but if you did the following will bring you up to speed.



The panel provided a number of recommendations that include:

Recommendations include:

- subjecting all services to scrutiny and comparative prioritisation, without an overridingpresumption of protection for any of the major services;
• discontinuing the current council tax freeze, which does not appear sustainable in the projected economic environment;
• ensuring that future annual efficiency targets across the public sector are no less than 2 per cent per annum;
• further reducing the number of public bodies;
• applying a two-year pay freeze, from 2011-12, as the first essential step to constrain growth in the public sector pay bill;
• immediately implementing a recruitment freeze across the public sector, with exceptions only granted for essential staff posts;
• managing a fall in public sector employment of between approximately 5.7 per cent and 10 per cent by 2014-15, as far as possible through natural wastage;
• reviewing the NHS Distinction Awards scheme, as part of the Fair Pay Review;
• engaging with the Independent Public Services Pension Commission to review public
sector pensions, recognising that changes to current public sector pension arrangements are essential and almost certainly unavoidable;
• undertaking immediate work to review whether all free or subsidised universal services should be retained in their current form, including reviewing eligibility criteria for concessionary travel and free NHS eye examinations, reviewing future arrangements for free personal and nursing care and considering the suspension of the final stage in the planned reduction in prescription charges;
• whether to maintain the current funding arrangements for higher education in Scotland or to implement a scheme similar to that in England, such as tuition fees, or other arrangements such as graduate contributions, taking into account the outcome of the Browne Review;
• revising and building on the role of the Scottish Futures Trust;
• exploring options for changing the status of Scottish Water, possibly to that of a public interest company, which could permit the release of significant capital to the Scottish Government for other projects; and
• developing a longer term strategic view of the future shape and nature of public services.



What do you think of the IBR?

The End of "New Politics" (Again)

Admittedly the last post was rather downbeat. To explain, I had just realised that there was no point in casting my vote. My democratic spirit was at an all time low as I planned an escape route from Lanarkshire while revelling in my pre-election apathy.

However, today is different. For one, its stopped raining. And for another, Gordon Brown delivered his speech on new politics. I'm sure there's a causal relationship between the two.

“It is time to see an end to the old politics” began Brown, not realising that by definition this means that Labour must lose the election given that they've been in power since 1997.

The Brown narrative was clear enough: connect the economy, climate change and social policy with democratic renewal. We will not “master [these] big challenges... unless the legitimacy of our democracy is fully restored”.

It's a tenuous link – remember the British take on revolt is gesticulating unprompted on Question Time – but let's stick with it.

A vote for Labour will guarantee the “most comprehensive programme of constitutional reform in this country for a century”. Reform includes:

- Ban MPs from working for lobbying companies.
- Introduce a US-style recall system to allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act.
- The electorate will be given a new right to petition the House of Commons to trigger debates on “issues of significant public concern”.
- “Charting a course to a written constitution”.
- Give the Parliament a “free vote” on reducing the voting age to 16.
- Introducing fixed term Parliaments.
- Referendum on changing the electoral system and reforming the House of Lords.
- The abolition of the term “new politics” under the 2006 Terrorism Act.

Undoubtedly Labour has a decent track record on constitutional reform having delivered devolution and beginning reform of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, these recent attempts to renew our democracy represent opportunism more than ideals - a progressive fag paper between Labour and the Tories, and perhaps an attempt to sway some Lib Dem voters too.

Why should the British electorate trust Labour to deliver on constitutional reform when thus far they have failed to do so? After three terms haven't they missed countless opportunities to create a “new politics”?

Either Labour strategists are banking on voter amnesia or they fancy their chances in a toe-to-toe brawl on democratic renewal with the Conservatives. And why wouldn't they? For all the localising mantra of Cameron and Co – as Brown pointed out – they have successfully blocked attempts by the UK Government to reform our democratic structures.

Perhaps the most important, if unspoken, point of Brown's speech is to more closely align Labour with the Lib Dems in the potential event of a hung parliament. Certainly, this wouldn't be the first ideological nod and a wink in this campaign. Already we have saw Vince Cable and the Chancellor agree on many issues in the “Ask the Chancellors” debate, signing as they were off the same philosophical hymn sheet.

Oh and I was joking about abolishing the term new politics, unfortunately.


Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager

The Election of a "Safe Parliament"

The show-piece of our demoralised democracy has been announced. That's right, 6 May will witness the UK General Election and as ever it will be outshone by TV soaps, with many of us prioritising a social life over watching a blow-by-blow account on the Beeb (BBC).

Of course, for many rationality isn't part of the decision-making process – we are already bitten by the political bug – and we will follow the ensuing political theatre with relish, popcorn, TV dinners and sardonic wit.

The first few days of the campaign haven't disappointed: photo op's with “constituents” who looked far too happy to see a politician on their doorstep; countless kissed babies; chapped handshakes; and industrial visits with porcelain white hard hats.

In reality it has all been a bit of an anti-climax as everyone already knew that the 6 May would be the chosen date and thus had been on an election footing. The first day was like any other as the SNP still maintained, with a straight face, that there “challenging” target was 20 seats against a chorus of “more nats, less cuts”. Indeed, even the Tories were at it with David “taxi” McLetchie claiming that the “Cameron effect” in Scotland would amount to 11 seats.

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems were bathing in the electoral spotlight and avoiding whenever possible to go into details of what their terms and conditions would be to become a coalition partner in a minority government. And lastly, Labour continued its negative strategy splendidly. “If you don't vote for us, the Tories will get in”. A rather redundant soundbite in Scotland it has to be said.

Yet the real story of the first few days came from the desks of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS); not the campaign trail. According to the ERS “25 million safe seat voters will not see a contest” with 383 MPs “elected for life”. Indeed, in large parts of the country the winner could be announced today. In Scotland, for example, only 23 constituencies are swing seats with more than 60% of seats safe. ERS Chief Exec Ken Ritchie said:

“These winners will take their seats in Britain’s Safe Parliament. Voters will never be able to boot these MPs out under our present system. They form a class of MPs that are, quite simply, elected for life... 2010 offers a tale of two elections – and two electorates. One that matters, and one that doesn’t. And for over 25 Million of us, who just happen to live in safe seats, this contest is already over”.

British Democracy in action: you gotta love it.


Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager

Fair Access and the Importance of Opportunity: A Case for Quality Internships

The General Election looms on the horizon. The party machinery is being oiled; sound bites are being tested; party coffers raided. Important issues like job creation and climate change - to name but a few - should be at the heart of this election campaign, but of course they won’t. Which makes issues like the one we bring up today all the more pressing.

Nobody can doubt that fairness is a key characteristic of a developed democratic society. In the Scottish context, fairness is high on the governmental agenda. The Panel of Fair Access to the Professions, a body set up to make recommendations on how fairness of access to professional skills should be promoted, does not stray from this norm either.

The Final Report of the Panel of Fair Access to the Professions identifies a problem in the UK’s present, and a danger in the UK’s future. Firstly, that ‘opportunity… is unevenly distributed’, with very few things being done about this, and secondly, that people who are not properly skilled could end up ‘stranded economically and divorced… socially’. It stresses, therefore, the importance of providing more learning opportunities to young people, and supporting them properly in today’s changing professional environment.

The report, drafted by a panel of high-profile specialists from a wide range of professions, asserts that the UK Government needs to make sure that the young people of today are given equal opportunities to social mobility. Special attention is given, among other factors (e.g. education) to internships, a sector that has many solutions to offer, and many problems to surpass.

Why internships?

Internships are recognised as ‘an essential part of the career ladder in many professions’ and an ‘important access point for entry to a career’. Professions are considered ‘central to the UK’s future’; a future where economic advantage will lie ‘increasingly in knowledge-based services’. The connection is easy to make. Internships, a proven ‘access point to professions’ and a decisive factor in graduates’ career decision-making process can help reverse the trend of professions becoming ‘more… socially exclusive over time’.
There is potential, but it is not being exploited.

There are significant inequalities in relevant opportunities for individuals, brought about by a number of factors (socio-economic, geographic, etc.) Internships are often unpaid, which means that taking them up may be costly; and the cost, which may vary, deters people who cannot afford to work for free in order to get the experience. As a result, ‘professions draw their interns from a limited pool of talent’. People are missing out on opportunities for professional development, organizations are missing talented individuals, and the consequences for social mobility are negative.

The quality of internships varies as well. Some are ‘very poorly run’, with interns used as a ‘low-cost way to cover positions’ and others are ‘run to a very high standard’. In short, a number of the already limited amount of people being trained receives training unlikely to lead to a ‘highly developmental internship experience’.

The proposed solution by the Milburn Commission consists of three main proposals: (1) a fairer, more transparent system for internships, (2) a national Kitemark that will recognise best practice, and the (3) removal of financial barriers to internships. By presenting case studies to prove the feasibility of said proposals, the Panel emphasizes strongly on the cooperation that will need to be forged among concerned actors (Government, professions, unions etc.) so that higher-quality training will be made available to more people.

The aim of the Report is ‘change’, and the Panel is very clear in stating that this change ‘has got to be made’. The proposal is out there, and it is up to actors to turn it into action.

How relevant is an (essentially) English Report to Scotland?

According to recent research conducted in Scotland, social mobility has suffered, as ‘the margin for improvements for children is more limited’ and ‘opportunities for upward movement have been declining’. Combined with the effects of the economic crisis in the job market and the increasing unemployment of graduates, the need to implement measures in Scotland, such as the ones proposed by the Report, becomes only more pressing.

The realization of this situation, and the intention of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy to partake and contribute to this nationwide initiative, is the primary reason behind its desire to create an internship programme that will hopefully be fully funded (by the Scottish Government), and accessible to all*. In cooperation with the Scottish Government, as intended and proposed by the Panel, the CSPP offers to formulate and manage a programme that will bring graduates in contact with participating organizations. By promoting internships and offering a graduate wage, the CSPP will create new opportunities for a wide range of organizations and graduates alike. The former will be able to tap into a wider pool of talent that can suit their needs better, and the latter will be given the opportunity to get that crucial first step in the job market, without being deterred by the cost. In order to ensure that the programme is closely aligned with the Scottish Government’s strategic policy objectives, a contact point will hopefully be established.

The benefits of such a program are obvious. Scottish graduates could greatly improve their employability, Scottish businesses could benefit highly from the work of talented professional people, and the Government could enhance its own efforts to improve and strengthen its economic recovery. New opportunities could be created for everyone.

Change is possible, but it ‘has got to be made’. Identifying a problem only makes the imperativeness of solving it even greater; such is the case of fair access to professions. Since we have established that we need to work together as organizations, it is only natural that we should examine how such cooperation could take place, and try to make it reality as soon as possible.

There are many steps that need to be taken towards the goal of a better future where everyone will be able to participate and contribute. Extensive cooperation and fairer access to professional development may not be the only answers to the problem, but they are indispensable parts of its solution. Indeed we, alongside numerous other organisations, are already working together to put relevant and paid internships to Scotland’s struggling graduates.

For further information contact Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Manager.

*This programme has already began, without Scottish Government funding.

Nikolaos Bizas,
Research Associate

A modern Greek tragedy

In 2008, Greek political and banking circles were pleasantly surprised to find the country ‘somehow shielded’ from the crisis ‘experienced all over the world’. Many believed that the structure of the Greek economy (which did not rely heavily on exports) and the modus operandi of Greek banks provided them with relative safety against a crisis that claimed scores of jobs in other countries. Financial ratings companies warned of increased national debt and economic slowdown, but kept the faith nevertheless.

In late 2009, the picture in Greece was a completely different one. Optimism gave way to anxiety, as international credit rating agencies cut Greece’s credit rating, downgrading Greek government bonds and the country’s perceived ability to borrow and pay back debt. The ruling Socialist government announced a much bigger budget deficit than the one originally expected, and shares in Greek banks were reported to have suffered significant losses.

Many countries have faced financial crisis in recent years; what makes the Greek case a special one is the fact that it is a member of the Euro zone. Its membership is the reason that Greece cannot devalue its currency, and therefore employ a traditional method of boosting competitiveness in times of crisis. As the Euro zone comprises of many members, not all of them as competitive as Germany or France, it is interesting to see how Greece plans, and hopefully manages to deals with its problems.

So far, the Greek government’s plan can be summed up in four words: raise taxes, cut spending.

In reference to the first part of this simple scheme, the Greek ministry of finance recently published a meticulous report of all taxes in Greece, in which it is specifically stated that throughout 2010 there will be significant changes in the way that work and capital will be taxed, and that tax exemptions will be reconsidered. Members of the ministry have also announced a number of measures that will soon take place, as promised in the report. Taxes will be raised for cigarettes and alcohol; the age of retirement will become the same for men and women; and increases in salaries over €2,000 will be frozen (according to the government aim of a more just distribution of income). According to the revised Stability Program 2010-2013, the government plans to clamp down on individuals who fail to declare their full income, or pay their proper due to the state. Over a million (roughly a tenth of total Greek population) entrepreneurs are to be checked for tax evasion during this ‘tax-safari’, as the Greek press has described it. Like their counterparts in the UK, Greek bankers are also to be taxed heavily.

The cuts announced are equally as massive. Plans have been announced for a hiring freeze in the public sector for 2010, and limited hiring of permanent civil servants from 2011 onwards, effectively shrinking one of Greece’s traditionally largest employers. Short term-employment contracts are to be reduced by one third and social security expenditures are to suffer yet undisclosed cuts. Ministries’ operating costs and Greece’s traditionally strong defence budget will also be affected by the spending cuts.

In the event that revenues and expenditures miss the desired target, the Government is considering a backup plan, that will include further increase in value-added tax (VAT) and property taxes, the abolition of preferential treatment of certain professions, and the increase of fuel levies, while cutting state ministries’ budgets at the same time.

Early on in December, the Greek government additionally sold €2.9 billion of floating-rate notes to banks, in an attempt to cut what is considered the ‘European Union’s largest budget deficit’. Loans to cover various expenditures have also been announced, and Greece plans to issue about 40 percent of its 2010 debt early on in the year. Greek banks are to be the biggest purchaser of Greek sovereign debt.

Outsider views on the crisis, and the procedure taken to tackle it, vary. Certain economists have questioned the savings announced, and others have not made up their mind yet about whether the EU should help Greece or not. German economic analysts have stressed that despite the economic hardship and unrest (which coincided with riots against an infamous case of police brutality), Greece is going to make it, thus alleviating fears about the Euro zone’s future. The IMF sound quite reassuring too.

To be frank, Greece has no option but to make it. The European Central Bank has been very explicit about reducing budget deficits fast, and, besides, much more is at stake than disappointing the ECB. What Greece is risking, as Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou has repeatedly said, is losing its credibility vis-à-vis investors and partners. "Our credibility deficit is more important than the deficit in our public finances," told Papaconstantinou to parliament, and he is right; for credibility can push investments and cooperation, and help get Greece out of the deficit pit it’s found itself in. After all, no country can develop and prosper on its own. Even the greatest of superpowers need partners.

Analysts, officials and organizations all seem to agree on Greece’s economic recuperation; it may take long, it may be tough, but eventually it will come. What has not been examined, however, is the impact of this massive reform plan on the Greek society, and its large public sector. Greece is a country with a traditionally high number of civil servants, which have so far struggled to provide satisfactory services to the Greek public. Contrarily to the private sector, which is loosely regulated and monitored and where workers’ rights have been increasingly violated over the last years, the public sector in Greece is considered a stable and trustworthy employer, where the rights of workers are safeguarded and where unions are rife.

With the coming measures, however, the public sector undergoes drastic changes. Existing personnel will have to manage with less funding, and eventually less workforce, and retirement age is equalised upwards for men and women. Given the fact that, as it is, the Greek public sector is already not considered to meet its duties towards the Greek public effectively, a reduction in money and manpower could mean further deterioration of provided services, unless it is accompanied by measures that will improve efficiency- expotentially.

A smaller number of public sector jobs means that private sector jobs will have to be created in order to avoid having large numbers of unemployed people putting pressure on an already exhausted welfare system. Given Greece’s current ‘credibility deficit’, and the lack of money to create new public sector jobs, it remains doubtful how this could occur.

The government’s attempts to reduce deficit are bound to have wider repercussions than imagined- or announced. The question is, essentially, if Greek policy-makers have considered these repercussions appropriately. Finding money to pay off a debt is one thing, but adjusting a whole workforce and a job market to wholly new conditions is something completely different.

In ancient Greek tragedies, a person or thing called deus ex machina would appear at just the right time to provide an unexpected helping hand, a solution nobody had thought of. It seems to be absent from modern tragedies though, and the hero of this particular tragedy, Greece, has no one to count on but itself.

Nikolaos Bizas,
Research Associate

"Whose Price is Right in the Politics of Shopping?"

Published in the Scotsman, 24/11/09

"Forget the result of the Glasgow North-East by-election. As a predictor of UK general election voting intentions, it tells us precisely nothing. This result was meaningless, with only a third of those registered actually bothering to vote – about as much an indicator of what will happen next year as Jordan's performance in the I'm a Celebrity bush-tucker challenge tells us about progress towards gender equality in the UK workforce.

Similarly, by-elections flatter to deceive. Remember Dunfermline West? Did Willie Rennie's "famous" win allow the Liberal Democrats to go back to their constituencies and prepare for power? Did John Mason's "sensational" result in Glasgow East put the
SNP on a motorway to independence? And what about Glenrothes? Did Lindsay Roy's "show-stopping" victory kill Nationalism stone dead? No, no and no again.

To forecast the outcome of next year's UK general election, we should look to the town centres rather than the civic centres. The last four Scottish by-elections for Westminster seats have not presaged any general political trend whatsoever. As psephological experts such as Professor John Curtice keep telling us, by-elections are, at best, a barometer of public angst, a snap-shot rather than a long-term indicator of any electoral trend.

Activity in our town centres tells us much more about the Great British public. As a nation of shoppers, we demonstrate our level of economic confidence through retail, with early signs of a downturn or of an uplift in general economic activity appearing first on the high street. Isn't retail activity an accurate indicator of the state of the nation's mood, demonstrating how we feel about ourselves, our families and our communities?

And what is it that most influences how people vote in the self-interested privacy of the polling booth? The likely impact on their pocket. So, as we approach the final Christmas shopping spree before the general election, will Santa be good to Gordon or will that boy Dave get the toys that he's asked for? Will our collective economic behaviour in our town centres, shopping malls and online reveal our political thinking before the general election has even been called?

Will a Christmas sales boom indicate that the nation agrees with Labour's fiscal strategy of spending our way out of recession or will a tightening of the personal purse strings show that people are already taking their lead from an incoming Tory government expected to set about public spending cuts with real rigour?

Let's examine the evidence. As the Scottish Retail Consortium (SRC) reported last week, the Scottish high street witnessed a 1.5 per cent increase in like-for-like sales in October, matching the year-on-year rise the previous month, just ahead of the UK figures. The SRC said "Scottish customers are regaining the spending habit".

Set against the wider economic context of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report forecasting 0.2 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of this year, these retail sales figures will be toasted at the Downing Street Christmas party. But can the political temperature really be taken from our eagerness to shop till we drop?

It is instructional to look at the impact our obsession for retail therapy has had on the very fabric of our lives: whether it's the impact on the physical nature of our communities, with town centres and their ubiquitous shopping-mall satellites fashioned from our trends and tastes, with a liberal sprinkling of Americanism, or how the way our week is often organised around shop opening hours.

So much of our society is shaped by our consumerist mind-set that it is a source of great wonder why politicians haven't yet made more of an effort to get a share of that market, other than switching their constituency surgeries from draughty (and often embarrassing) community halls to the cosy comfort of a the local superstore's café. Whilst they're at it, how about politicians going the whole hog and using the National Lottery's superb IT network for voting?

So, if all the action is in the supermarket aisles, what can our politicians do to shape our political shopping choices? Well, to give credit where it's due, our MSPs are ahead of the game. The creation of the Town Centre Regeneration Fund (TCRF) this year was the first real recognition of the political importance of our town centres and the genuine sense of attachment that all communities have to theirs.

In a widely welcomed move, the Tories and Labour united with the SNP minority government in a budget-day exercise to support our town centres: new politics in action at last; a well-packaged tenth anniversary gift from the Scottish Parliament. The creation of the TCRF has also been described as Scotland's first real example of another Americanism; pork barrel spending, for our high streets. But, the cash committed to the mammoth task of dragging Scotland's town centres into the 21st century was a measly £60 million from a budget of more than £33 billion, which, on my shopping calculator, is about 0.002 per cent. This is more pork scratching than pork barrel, and it will be fascinating to see whether this initiative, designed and marketed as a one-off for capital spending projects, will see the kind of capital and revenue growth that our politicians would love to see in their economic forecasts.

This will be one of the topics at the second "Vital and Vibrant Town Centres" conference in Perth this week, along side other economic growth initiatives such as the Business Improvement District model. Appropriately enough, the event will hear from the other side of the pond, with Chuck Dalldorf, from the League of California Cities, talking about town-centre improvement mechanisms that have made a real difference across the US.

As for predicting the result of next year's election, what can our town centres tell us? Will a confidence-induced rush through the doors of Harvey Nicks save Gordon Brown or will an economic "dumbing down" to the bargain basement of Poundstretcher indicate a new austere alignment with David Cameron? Well, what's the common factor in consumer and political choices? As they say in America, it's the economy, stupid"

Ross Martin, Policy Director

"A prickly subject, but Russell's the man to tackle it"

This article was published in the Scotsman on Thursday 4 December. You can access it here.

"Scottish education is stuck at a crossroads. As school standards flatline, following a sustained period of unprecedented investment, the four main political parties at Holyrood don't show any signs of a clear direction of travel.

After ploughing in a cash injection of over £1 billion to fund the botched McCrone pay package, our putative political leaders sitting in the Scottish Parliament have very little to show for it. Little wonder they've resorted to those old political playground staples – name calling and the blame game.

Its just not good enough from our MSPs. Labour has been leading results-driven reform down south, but refuses to even contemplate education innovation in Scotland.

The Liberal Democrats can't seem to convince themselves that their universal embrace of local democracy is at all appropriate for the most important, and expensive, public service – our school system.

The Tories have still not recovered from their humiliation over their utterly failed push towards opt-out and are blindly fumbling around at the bottom of their reform cupboard in search of a market mechanism that would pass any popular test.

As for the SNP government, their school report card has been well and truly marked – and the half-term picture is bleak. The ludicrous drive towards class size limits of 18 – a number plucked from the ether – was always going to end up down a classroom cul-de-sac.

A phased approach towards 25, the actual and practical limit in all small schools that run composite classes – would have generated almost universal support from parents, teachers and, perhaps as importantly in light of this week's events, also with their own local education authorities.

The Scottish Futures Trust is more than a few school site starts away from matching the much-maligned public-private partnership (PPP) programme "brick for brick".

The Curriculum for Excellence is under sustained bombardment from the very people upon whom the government must rely to implement it with energetic enthusiasm – Scotland's school leaders. And teacher numbers fell faster than the sector's confidence in the education secretary throughout these past few months.

Meanwhile, under the cover of the concordat, local councils have been getting on with the job of seeking "Scottish solutions to Scottish problems" – which was meant to be the motivating factor, even part justification, of the Scottish Parliament.

The balance of power, and more noticeably of action, has shifted – away from central government and towards an increasingly confident local government, with councils of all political colours beginning to show real signs of education reform.

Whether it's Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire, leading on the modernisation of the comprehensive secondary school, or the SNP-Lib Dem coalition in charge of East Lothian promoting a mature and reflective debate on how best to run the schools in its area, local councils are recognising the fact that budgetary constraints demand new thinking on the design and the delivery of Scotland's school system.

This shift of power, and with it the introduction of local flexibility, has been barely perceptible against the background of noise being generated in and around Holyrood, yet it may well be the clearest signal yet as to the future direction of Scottish schools.

At its heart lies the educational elephant that has been an ever present in our school classrooms these past few decades – parental involvement.

There have been many attempts – all failed – to encourage parents to actively engage with the education sector. We've had everything from the Tories' School Boards – that were exposed early as ideological vehicles for opting individual institutions out of the local education authority system rather than a mechanism for real engagement – to Labour's botched School Councils, that were neither one thing nor the other, introduced with practically zero preparation or parental support.

It is time to take stock of Scotland's school system, to stop reflecting on past glories and for our political class to realise that standards will not rise unless local people – be they councils enabled to act with more freedom or parents positively encouraged to directly engage – are allowed in on the closed-shop of school education policy making.

It is time to wrest control from the administrators and the other defenders of the tired old status quo and give real power to those who have an interest in improving performance.

Now, the new education secretary has form here. In his previous ministerial roles, Mike Russell has shaken up the way other parts of the public sector do business with their customers.

From "encouraging" Historic Scotland to change its image from old fuddy-duddy to trendy, accessible, welcoming host, to pressing Scottish Water to directly channel its resources into supporting the Scottish Government's central policy purpose of enabling the developments that drive sustainable economic growth.

Mike Russell certainly understands the fundamentals of good-quality, efficient public services, and that they involve the engagement and participation of the people with whom these services must be designed and delivered.

This is a very shrewd – and in some quarters at least, readily forecast – appointment, and it will come as no surprise to anyone who has worked with him when he grabs the education establishment by the scruff of its school collar and faces it firmly in the direction of pupils and their parents.

It is simply inconceivable under this new minister that every one of our schools will be run on the failed centralised model of Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education, where bowler-hatted civil servants fan out across the country dispensing their detached verdict on teaching and learning standards after a few days' inspection.

But there must now be an acceleration of real reform, with an emphasis on improvement through the engagement of those with most at stake in raising performance levels.

And if that means upsetting the fractious teaching unions, then this minister has at least written the book on 'Grasping the Thistle'."

Ross Martin, Policy Dircetor