I ALWAYS worry when I write about “The Establishment”. As a white, male, older, professionally qualified professor who has been given a platform it is a bit hard to deny that I must, in some way, be part of that set up. And yet at the same time I look at what goes on in society and realise that being a part of The Establishment is not a matter of who you are, but of what you believe in.
That opinion was very firmly reinforced this week. The combined forces of the London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Strathclyde University-based Fraser of Allander Institute, and Stirling’s University Management School published a report on the stresses that they think have arisen within Scottish Government financing as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic. Reading it, I could not help but think that I was an outsider.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Omicron has laid bare the stark problems in the Union's finances
To a very large degree, what these institutes say is of very little consequence. As far as I can tell no one is obliged to listen. That I might describe as good news because, when all is said and done, what they suggest is some minor tinkering at the edges of the devolution settlement. The intention is that Scotland should not be caught out again by rapid changes in budgets set by London. They also propose very small increases in borrowing powers for Holyrood which, in the overall scheme of things, will be inconsequential.
In that case, what I am really interested in is what is not being said by these combined forces of supposed economic firepower. What matters is that the issue that is almost absent from their report is any debate about independence. It is true that there are a couple of what might best be described as quite snarky comments about Scotland’s ability to manage risk without the rest of the UK underwriting its finances, but thereafter the issue is entirely ignored. It is taken as read that Scotland will be better off in the Union, and about that I do not agree.
The simple fact is that this report addresses an issue that is created by a failed Union and a failed devolution process, failings which can never be addressed by some tinkering at the edges.
In a Union that demands that most political power be retained in London and that Holyrood can only be given responsibility for the delivery of policy within the limits of heavily constrained budgets, there is no possible mechanism for truly providing the current Scottish Government with the powers that it needs to deliver an economic policy best suited to the people of Scotland. No amount of tinkering will overcome that fact. Only independence will, and these authors consider that to be off the table.
The result is a report that was always going to make inconsequential recommendations on what can now only be described as an insoluble problem, which is the impossibility of making devolution work.
The Scottish establishment does not wish to recognise this. Most of conservative (small c) inclination in England simply dismisses the possibility of change, and I very definitely put the Institute for Fiscal Studies in this group. What that means is that as yet another year comes to a close the political forces within the Union remain as divided as ever. Those who want to retain United Kingdom control of Scotland pretend that the independence solution does not exist. This report provides very clear evidence of that.
On the other hand, those who think that independence is the only answer for Scotland continue to feel themselves outside the political Establishment, despite years of SNP government in Holyrood.
When will this change? That, surely, is the agenda for 2022.
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