Dear Alister,
I wrote an open letter to you when you took office and offered some, I hope helpful, advice, particularly about the perils of letting other people speak for you.
Some hours after the UK Budget on Wednesday I read a report quoting you speaking for yourself and felt I needed to offer a further thought. This can be summed up in that old adage “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
You are already aware that many people think you and your party are politically out of touch with Scotland, and you yourself confirm that regularly by, for example, going about preaching the merits of Brexit though the evidence is that it will do great damage to your constituents and your country, which voted against it.
During last December’s election you went so far as to say that you “viewed the EU as a business club that wasn’t fit for purpose” and that you looked favourably on the largely de-regulated Asian economies.
It is undoubtedly true that many wealthy Tories would be happier with a system which promoted their interests over those of their workers.
However, the implication that the EU is a failing business club is nonsense. The EU has been a source of peace, prosperity and social progress on our continent for more than half a century, and has helped countless individuals lead better lives. Moreover, the single market, which you regard as not fit for your purposes, has been a massive success for all its members, including the UK.
It is the world’s largest true free trade area, yet you want to drag us out of it.
But back to the Budget. Your lofty instruction on Wednesday was that the Scottish Government should use its monies (which are in real terms less than we got in 2010) to “improve upon ... failing public services” and that you would like to “see education standards improve ... hospitals being built properly ... ferries being built and delivered on time and ... local authorities receive more money”.
Let’s do some “compare and contrast” on that. We could start with the abject failures of the Tory-run UK public services, given that your party’s performance on key health indicators south of the Border is substantially worse than that of the Scottish Health Service.
You might want also want to find out about the building sites in Liverpool and Manchester, which should by now have been hospitals, and reflect upon massive overspending and delays there before criticising a Health Secretary who is insisting on safety, accountability, and performance.
In education, Scotland is praised internationally for its approach to a modern delivery of skills and knowledge, and it has a world-beating higher education system which is, of course, based upon the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
On ferries, while I too regret the problems at Fergusons, I wonder if you have ever heard of your Tory colleague Chris Grayling and the £50 million he paid for boats which never sailed and never will?
And as for local authorities – do you recall more than a decade of austerity and the constant cutting of Scottish Government budgets?
Even so, the Scottish Government has managed to deliver a level of local government funding which English councils look on with envy.
Finally, to add insult to injury, you sternly warned us against using any of the “Union dividend”, as you call it, on “separation”.
Scotland has the right to choose its own future and we also have the right to set our own priorities. You do the same. So if you really want to tell us what not to spend money on, I would want to insist you spend none of Scotland’s taxes on, say, Trident, HS2, and Brexit. OK?
So here is my advice. Think first. Think before saying things which reveal you as a Secretary of State for Scotland who doesn’t want, as you keep telling me, to work with the Scottish Government, but one who wants only to score political points against it.
These are difficult times. They require us all to rise above the normal noise. We have to co-operate to help our fellow citizens face and overcome a global threat.
Neither of us has the exclusive right to speak for Scotland. But as you represent a party that hasn’t won an election here in more than half a century, you might show a touch more grace when dealing with one elected three times over.
Hope this advice helps.
As ever,
Michael
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel