The Scottish Government

13. Ian Innes - Elgin

What are the fundamentals that make Holyrood more representative than Westminster? They both seem to operate on the same principles to me.

Gordon Murray says: "If by 2009/10 things aren't starting to look up on the economy I'll be listening with interest to learn why?"

I can tell you why right now Gordon, and I don't need a crystal ball to do it. As I pointed out last year on this National Conversation website the entire world was then heading into stormy seas. We are now in them and it is only going to get worse, much worse. In fact I also pointed out that the Royal Bank of Scotland would live to regret going ahead with its acquisiton of the ABN AMRO banking group since it would damage their balance sheet in the event of a credit crunch and that they would have difficulty selling off the assets that didn't fit their business plan. This is now happening as I predicted. Since RBS is the flagship of the Scottish financial sector their difficulties are very bad news for the country. The Bank of Scotland is in no better condition.

The one bright spark of course that everyone will mention is the rise in oil prices but this is a two edged sword since we don't own the oil and it makes everything else we buy that much dearer. It also means that there is little likelihood that the UK would allow Scotland to walk away with the revenues from the oil patch since THEIR engine of growth, the City of London, has also had a heart attack. They have nothing of any substance to fall back on, except the oil revenues. The UK will probably end up as an economic basket case.

The entire political economic landscape is going to go through a radical unprecedented convulsion. We have never seen anything like it in history. The technical name for the condition we shall end up in is hyperinflationary depression. The SNP is essentially a socialist party that truly believes in the Fabian and Keynesian doctrines that are currently in vogue throughout the Western nations, albeit with a dash of traditional Scottish flavoring. These beliefs will not serve them well in the coming years since it is these selfsame doctrines that have brought us to this sorry pass. Even Keynes knew what the result of his theories would be but he also knew he would not live to see the end of the play. There is nothing anyone can do to avoid the denouement facing them.

Personally I voted SNP because I believe, and still do, that Scotland should be independent. But ultimately I would like to see her throw off the collectivist shackles, whether SNP, Labour, Lib Dem, Green or Tory, they are all essentially the same. It is my hope that we might be able to come out of the coming Greater Depression with a better understanding of who we are and what we need to do to build a better society together.

If the opinion polls are to be believed David Cameron, the present leader of the conservative party at Westminster, will take over from Gordon Brown after the next Westminster elections. With a majority, it is estimated, of around 100.

It was Francis Pym, the then foreign secretary, who, prior to the 1983 UK general election, forewarned the citizenry of these sceptred isles of the dangers associated with an outcome which gave to one party an unassailable majority over all others.

He intimated that democracy would not be best served in such circumstances.

Margaret Thatcher was not amused. She got her unassailable majority and promptly sacked dear Francis.

The conservative hegemony at Westminster was set to last a further 14 years before being replaced in 1997 by another under Tony Blair and now his successor as PM, Gordon Brown.

A consequence of the foregoing being that a large section of the British electorate has been effectively disenfranchised. And that the 'elective dictatorship' that Lord Hailsham warned the British public of back in 1976 is alive and fully functioning.

But if there are grounds for hoping that the future may bring change to the 'Mother of Parliaments' they were outlined in the headlines of the Guardian, dated 24th March 2008. Which read 'Ministers back radical plan for voting reform'. The proposals outlined by the government would 'improve the legitimacy of the Commons' unquote.

This admission that what passes as 'democracy in action' at Westminster is, and has been for a very long time, in truth, deeply flawed.

If PM Brown is serious about creating a fairer society then he should do for Westminster what Donald Dewar did for Holyrood. Put in place the fundamentals necessary for the establishment of a truly representative democracy in England.

for further reading start at, #11, Scotland performs.

11. Ian Innes - Elgin

I'm sure Donald Dewar would not have had trouble seeing the parallels between the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments. Lord Hailsham's 1976 critique of our parliament was that there was no limit to what could be passed into law by this body. In this sense, on devolved issues at least, the system at Holyrood is very similar to Westminster, if not worse in that there is only one house at Holyrood.

You seem to have misunderstood Hazel Blears' stance. She generally seems to support decentralised government. She advocates local control at an even more basic level than local councils. Perhaps this is where you have misunderstood her; she does want to reduce their powers, but only to empower local citizens even more.

I agree with Lord Hailsham, that we must take care not to let the checks and balances be eroded. It is crucial to the functioning of democracy that the electorate remain vigilant. While this has not been more necessary in the recent past than now, it is clearly not the case that government in Britain has become more centralised.

FATHER OF A NATION

The title given to the obituary to the first First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, Donald Dewar.

It goes on to say '...it was Donald Dewar's drive, determination and skill which turned the dream of the return of Scotland's first parliament in 300 years into a reality...' unquote.

But despite spending much of his parliamentary career at Westminster the democratic model of the 'first Scottish parliament in 300 years' bore little resemblance to the Westminster model.

Therein lies his legacy to the Scottish Nation.

The Richard Dimbleby lecture of 1976, delivered by Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor, and entitled "ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP" would not have escaped his attention. Particularly the following extract:

'....the powers of our own Parliament [Westminster] are absolute and unlimited. And on this we are almost alone. All other free nations impose limitations on their representative assemblies. We impose none on ours. Parliament can take away a man's liberty or his life without a trial, We live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice. How far it is still tolerable is the question....To begin with, there has been a continuous enlargement of the scale and range of government itself...and a change in the relative influence of the different elements in government, so as to place all effective powers in the hands of one of them ...the checks and balances, which in practice use to prevent abuse, have now disappeared' unquote.

This damning critique of the so called 'Mother of Parliaments', by an insider, has since been the subject of debate among political commentators and others within the political establishment.

However, in the absence of any will, within the 'Westminster village' to redress matters, the abuse of power and the erosion of democracy is set to continue.

Underlined by the present government's seeming determination to circumvent and undermine local democray in England.

In her forthcoming white paper on "local empowerment" Ms Blears, the local government minister, advocates continuing the process of centralisation at the expense of local democracy. Only central control, she believes, can yield better public services. For her, there will be no place for elective discretion at local government level or tax devolution.

This contrasts sharply with the declared policy of the present Scottish government, which is to strengthen local government in Scotland.

With the Westminster government taking on aspects of the Leninist doctrine of 'democratic centralism', the common ground needed for a constructive dialogue between Holyrood and Westminster looks to be fast dasappearing.

It appears the democratic deficit between Holyrood and Westminster is set to grow even wider.

for further reading start at #88, conversation with Scotland's institutions.

I think that the concept of Scotland Performs is fantastic - but I am really disappointed that it only measures 3 areas of public service.
I'm a Nationalist but I am still not convinced about independence because I know that we are very poorly served by some areas of the civil service - and we certainly have very few who are of the calibre of those at the Treasury (to deal with matters that are currently reserved). I am very impressed by the quality of the SNP Ministers but it is the civil service that is the backbone of the country and until there is a review and all vacancies are offered openly to recruit the best people in Scotland; until the staff can be shown to be representative of the wider public (and not weighted towards those from Edinburgh public schools) and until all departments are subject to evaluation that includes stakeholder reviews, I shall be witholding my YES vote.

3. David - Edinburgh
You're a hard man to please, when was the SNP's first Scottish budget approved and passed through it's Holyrood committee stages?

If by 2009/10 things aren't starting to look up on the economy I'll be listening with interest to learn why?

If and when Scotland votes for independence we can hardly expect England to lose £30bn overnight without financial meltdown to their economy. Whether we like it or not this would have such major consequences for Westminster that the scaremongering, to which have become accustomed, would escalate exponentially. I think it would, therefore, be helpful to start talking about Englands future without Scotlands financial support in order for people in general to come to terms with the realities of change both north and south of the border. As we see all too often in marriage breakups, when one party walks away with all the goodies, and leaves the other seriously disadvantaged, bitterness and rancour replace goodwill. This must not be allowed to happen between two countries who can and should continue with extremely close links and cooperation despite going their own way on national policies.

I agree with you. It is exactly that: a knee jerk reaction of vitriol and hatred of the SNP government at practically every turn.I am astounded at the levels the sour labour party and the so-called liberal democrats have sunk to in their responses.That is not the way forward for our fine nation.

And already the pelters are raining down on this new initiative because it is somehow not"independently"run and is therefore politically biased towards party rather than government.Some people will always be half empty rather than half full.Opposition may be there to hold the government to account,but that shouldn't always mean a knee-jerked negative response constantly without assessing the initiative and reflecting on it.Have a debate in Parliament about it in opposition time,suggest alterations or improvements or introduce some other performance management system in operation in other countries to compare and/or contrast.By quickly trying to rubbish something unconditionally,for the sake of political one-upmanship,they insult our intelligence as it is easy to see through.