Belated congratulations are in order as the SNP marked another significant milestone in reaching 100 days, not of its first term in office, but its second running the government of Scotland. Self-congratulation appears to be off the agenda though – nothing on the SNP website, nowt from the Scottish Government either.
Right on cue, though, a trio of disparaging and dispiriting articles in the Scotsman – a political one, an almost identical analysis, and in case we hadn’t got the message, a down in the mouth leader that ponders these last 100 days and concludes, clunkily, that the SNP Government hadn’t hit the ground running but jogging.
No we haven’t witnessed 100 days of dynamic action, as we did in 2007. But then there are fewer quick fixes to be found. And this time, where’s the hurry? The SNP has a whole extra year to work with – pace is going to be everything this time round.
Moreover, with three opposition parties in disarray, floundering and leaderless, there has been no one snapping at their heels; indeed, some of the Scottish Government’s poor headlines have been of their own making (or rather the media’s, seeing it as their collective national and noble duty to offer some kind of scrutiny). This administration will last the course – the previous minority one did not know when its number might be called – and indeed, unless Labour gets its act together might even enjoy a third term. Who needs a hundred days when there are thousands in which to make your mark?
In any event, many of the SNP’s manifesto commitments either involve no change at all – continued council tax freeze, free personal care, free tuition fees etc – or ambitious, sweeping change – new capital investment programmes, innovative legislation, a living wage, a real shift to localism. Such measures are hard to fashion into immediate actions and ready soundbites.
These kind of reforms take time. As the First Minister found out, in a rare lesson in humility, with the harried anti-sectarianism bill, sometimes the old proverbs really are the best: less haste, more speed. Our patience is likely to be rewarded with a number of “big bills” to be announced when the Scottish Parliament returns the week after next.
The only show in town, as far as the SNP is concerned, has been the opportunity presented by the Scotland bill to maximise devolution. Its parliamentary timetable at Westminster demanded that the Scottish Government focused its attention on securing as many additional powers as possible; indeed, one of the most vibrant and busy committees of the next 100 days is likely to be that set up to explore, scrutinise and make the case for all the powers the First Minister has put on his shopping list. The prospect of items being crossed off that list is highly unlikely given the dominance of the SNP on the committee and in the chamber.
But it was not just the Government which eased itself gently into this session; the Parliament too did not exactly spring into action. Weeks went by with minimal parliamentary activity; committees took an age to appoint convenors; in the seven weeks before shutting up shop for the summer, the Parliament did not even open officially. But with a very different shape and size to parliamentary groups, as well as a whole host of new parliamentarians, the logistics of getting the show on the road this time round were harder to achieve. And crucially, everyone seemed exhausted from the efforts expended in the election – no one had much appetite for bounding Tigger-like into this session.
Now they’ve all had the summer to recover and recuperate, to rejoin and renew, there can be no excuses. Yet, while the press appears to have rolled its eyes and declared the summer to have been “boring”, it has largely ignored the fact that the Scottish Government has been very busy indeed. In fact, most of the Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have had little more than a week off. Not only has the Scottish Cabinet been on tour around Scotland, visiting far flung places like Stranraer, Fort William and even Kirkcaldy, its members have been on other tours and trips, immersing themselves in their portfolios in different parts of the country. Inbetween times, some of them have even managed to find time for some constituency work and pop home for tea with the family. There are no five holiday Cameronians in this bunch.
And yes, it might make for few headlines. It might seem – to some – to amount to aimless wandering, but it actually purports to serve a much needed purpose. To make clear that Holyrood is not Edinburgh’s Parliament but Scotland’s, that this SNP Government belongs to and governs for all of the country, reminding everyone that it takes its new-found responsibility as the National Party of Scotland seriously.
Taken together, it might not amount to an action-packed, thrill a minute hundred days of glory. But if it ensures thousands more days in government, and thousands more yes votes in the independence referendum, the SNP will consider it time well spent indeed.
#1 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 26, 2011 - 2:07 am
And overall, it just shows Westminster up even more as an increasingly irrelevant and wasteful institution within the Scottish context…
#2 by Dr William Reynolds on August 26, 2011 - 7:34 am
SNP government has just announced that they are providing half a million pounds to councils to tackle homelessness.Sounds like a worthwhile thing to do?
#3 by setindarkness on August 26, 2011 - 8:56 am
So far this parliament reminds me of Torchwood. The Miracle Day of the election followed by nothing much happening at all.
Let’s hope that the background activity actually turns into something interesting in the end
#4 by Jeff on August 26, 2011 - 9:16 am
Is there anything in particular that you would like to see the new Parliament deliver?
#5 by setindarkness on August 26, 2011 - 10:33 am
My comment wasn’t really a complaint (well it was about Torchwood) but until it was pointed out I had no idea we had got to 100 days and it “seems” odd. But as Indy says, it is all about the timetable.
Anyway, most of what I’d like to see delivered by parliament was in the SGP manifesto 🙂
#6 by Indy on August 26, 2011 - 9:27 am
That’s because of the timetable though – election, government elected, parliament sits for a wee bit and then goes into recess just after the queen officially opens it.
As the Burd points out, the SNP made a big deal of their first 100 days in 2007 because it was by no means certain that they would get to complete that 100 days. This time round is rather different and there is no need for such a high-spin approach.
#7 by setindarkness on August 26, 2011 - 10:29 am
That’s a fair point about the timetable
#8 by Doug Daniel on August 26, 2011 - 9:54 am
I’ve always wondered what the actual benefit is of holding cabinet meetings in different places. Are people allowed to spectate? Is it meant to stimulate ministers to think about local issues? I’m just not sure.
I’d be quite glad if we got away from the “first hundred days” nonsense permanently, though – that’s just for headlines, not serious government business.
#9 by Indy on August 26, 2011 - 1:14 pm
People aren’t allowed to attend cabinet meetings but there are public meetings and local events set up around them – cabinet meetings only last a couple of hours so they have the rest of the day for other meetings and events in the area.
I think it is a valid thing to do -clearly when parliament is sitting and people have full ministerial diaries it would be difficult to organise the whole cabinet to spen a full day in fort william or stranraeror whereever but they have a bit more time during the summer recess so that’s why they do it.
#10 by Doug Daniel on August 26, 2011 - 10:48 pm
Okay, that sounds worthwhile. I had actually envisaged cabinet meetings basically taking up the whole day, so if that’s not the case then I can see why they perhaps serve a purpose.
#11 by Gryff on August 26, 2011 - 1:39 pm
Do we have Roosevelt to blame for the Hundred days nonsense? Or has anyone got an earlier citation?
Its not a particularly sensible timescale, anything worth doing is unlikely to be doable that fast. (perhaps in America this is different because you get time before taking office in which to take stock?)
As for Summer Cabinets there are both receptions and public meetings on the day. Some ministers will also take the opportunity to do local visits the day before or after, or incoporate into a ‘tour’ of public and private engagements.
#12 by Doug Daniel on August 26, 2011 - 10:51 pm
That’s the earliest mention I could find on it. It’s certainly an American phenomenon, and as you rightly say, it almost makes sense in their system, but certainly not in ours. Especially when it takes the best part of a month to get the new session underway, even – as we saw this time – when there are no coalition deals to be struck before things can get underway. In fact, I do find it unbelieveable how long it took for parliament to sit down and re-elect Big Eck as First Minister – they should see about making that process quicker in future, in case a similar situation occurs.
#13 by John on August 26, 2011 - 11:03 am
You spoke too soon…
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/08/26094442
#14 by GMcM on August 26, 2011 - 12:23 pm
A living wage? Are you being serious?
The SNP policy on a living wage can’t even be considered a watered down version of Labour’s plans – it’s a joke.
If the SNP are serious about a Living Wage they will bring a full public sector Living Wage before parliament. Anything less is not good enough and is just more of the same from the SNP.
Bring forward a couple of ‘left of centre’ policies and talk them up to make the party look left of centre when they’re not.
If the SNP were serious about equality and fairness they would ditch their wreckless regressive council tax freeze and bring in a proper Living Wage across the public sector.
Can anyone tell me what policies the SNP have brought in that have made Scotland a fairer place and put money into the pockets of the poorest people in our society?
Ahhhh rant over! 🙂
#15 by CassiusClaymore on August 26, 2011 - 3:39 pm
GMcM
The Council tax freeze is not regressive. Saving a few quid a month makes no difference to someone rich, but it’s very important to someone scraping by.
Please also note that the SNP Govt can only spend what it gets given by London (NB – less than we send there in taxes) and is thus structurally predestined to cut expenditure if the block grant is cut. Also, please remember that Labour wrecked the UK economy – which is why there are spending cuts in the first place.
Finally – I don’t see that it’s necessary to boost public sector wages, when they’re already higher on average than the wages of the private sector workers (whose taxes pay the public sector wage bill, of course…..)
CC
#16 by James on August 26, 2011 - 3:51 pm
Wrong on all three counts!
a) The poorest don’t pay Council Tax, the lack of revaluation has helped those in the biggest properties, and as a Tory said to me “of course it’s progressive: progressively, the more you earn, the more you save.”
b) There are many many ways in which the Scottish Government could raise taxes, even if they hadn’t let the SVR lapse. Greens set some of them out during the last budget.
c) The pay comparison is also inaccurate – here are some of the reasons why.
#17 by Doug Daniel on August 26, 2011 - 10:56 pm
and as a Tory said to me “of course it’s progressive: progressively, the more you earn, the more you save.â€
Well yes, exactly – the tax itself is regressive, and the more it increases, the more regressive it is. So surely freezing it is the most progressive thing they can do with it until they manage to get a more progressive alternative in place?
#18 by CassiusClaymore on August 26, 2011 - 4:24 pm
James
a) the Council Tax bill of the ordinary working person is reduced. What’s not to like? It was certainly popular with the electorate.
b) yes, if they were minded to depress the Scottish economy even further. Thankfully, they’re not.
c) I admit you can make the figures work either way. If you include pension entitlements……
CC
#19 by James on August 26, 2011 - 4:33 pm
There isn’t actually much data as to which specific parts of anyone’s programme were popular, to be honest. And investing in public services wouldn’t depress the Scottish economy. Sticking rigidly to Osbornomics might well do, though.
#20 by GMcM on August 26, 2011 - 4:44 pm
a) Yeah what’s not to like about throwing some scraps the way of the ‘working person’? The SNP manifesto was put forward as manifesto for fairness. Is it fair that the richer you are the better off you become with the council tax freeze?
As James states above – the poorest don’t pay already, so when you reduce funding to local government you negatively impact on the services required by those who will see no benefit from a council tax freeze.
The people who don’t use the services provided by the local authority get the most money back in their pockets while those who receive little/no financial benefit from the policy have their services reduced.
How anyone can support such a policy and say it is fair is anyones guess.
James has already responded to your other nonsensical points (b and c). There’s no need for me to over egg the pudding.
#21 by Don McC on August 26, 2011 - 5:59 pm
It’s nonsense to claim that only the rich live in big houses. Absolute nonsense. It’s time that lie was put to bed because the people that benefit from the freeze are, as your Red Ed calls them, the squeezed middle.
I earn just over the limits to receive any rebate on my council tax. A few pounds over the limit. If the freeze wasn’t in place, I would be paying a lot more than those few pounds difference. I’d need to have asked my boss to reduce my hours so I would qualify for a rebate. So where’s the gain for the public purse – I would be paying less tax, I would have less money in my pocket to spend at the shops, the council would have to contribute towards my council tax, offsetting any gain by increasing it.
Labour have to start looking at the bigger picture. It’s not just those on benefits that need help, many more of us need a wee helping hand now and again.
#22 by Dr William Reynolds on August 26, 2011 - 5:09 pm
The Scottish government didn’t let the SVR relapse.I thought that we had already established that the evidence showed that it had already relapsed when the new SNP government took over in 2007.In relation to the council tax,the freeze is widely appreciated by many families who are struggling with rising prices ,insecurity about employment and the failure of salaries to keep up with inflation.I hear all of the arguments against the council tax freeze but the reality out there is that it is helping struggling families to cope.The politiciand who talk about it as being regressive should go and talk to people out there in the real world.It is obvious that after resisting it for so long,the reason that labour supported it was a realization that they were out of touch with the people whoe’s votes they sought.
In any case,this discussion is deviating from the topic.Indy makes a good point that there is no pressure on the second SNP government to hit the ground running.It is also arguable that what they achieve in five years is more important than what they achieve in 100 days.However,I recommend that the Burd looks at the SNP website.It shows that a lot more has been achieved in the forst 100 days of this government than people may realize.
#23 by The Burd on August 26, 2011 - 6:27 pm
There was nothing up when I looked yesterday – something posted now?
#24 by CassiusClaymore on August 26, 2011 - 7:19 pm
Type your comment here
Well, it was popular enough for Labour to copy it….
Raising taxes depresses economic activity and drives away talent. The converse is also true. Half of my pals are now abroad for this very reason – because their jobs went there and they had to follow, or because they decided to quit working for the Treasury rather than themselves. Labour is mobile now. We have to compete, or at the very least stop driving our home-grown talent away.
GMcM – did you know that every Labour government in history – every single one – has left unemployment higher than when it took office? That’s how good they are for the working man like me.
Still, at least they mean well. Apart from the illegal wars, pointless nuclear weapons, useless Millennium Dome, sale of peerages and selling our gold at a loss, so far, of £12bn. Oh yeah, and the Edinburgh Tram. Apart from that, they’re totally awesome!
CC
#25 by Barbarian on August 27, 2011 - 6:53 pm
I have to jump in here about the council tax.
I own a 4-bedroom house, but I bought it (well, mortgage!) by selling my flat which I owned outright, only because of redundancy money.
I earn a reasonable wage, but nowehere close enough to buy my house at its current value. I fear a revaluation since the government will allow councils to hammer those who they consider to be well off.
Council tax needs urgent reworking, perhaps to consider a hybrid similar to the poll tax – ie based on the number of people in a property.
With rising energy bills, food prices, petrol and transport costs, a huge jump in council tax would floor the already fragile economy.
There is also another problem – the public sector is very shaky in terms of job security. That also includes a number of quangos, of there are three the SNP would love to get rid of for political reasons. I’m not going into details, but there are at present some 3,000 to 4,000 jobs under threat, of which 1,500 are under serious threat. If you do a little research you may be able to figure out what quangos / pubic sector would likely disappear should independence become a reality.
#26 by Doug Daniel on August 27, 2011 - 10:03 pm
Don’t be a tease – which quangos?
#27 by Indy on August 28, 2011 - 4:44 pm
I can’t believe we are going through the whole council tax argument again.
I can tell you what my data told me James time and time and time again voters said that they wanted to keep the council tax freeze because they couldn’t afford to pay more tax, with everything else going up, and it was important to them to have one bill coming in which was predictable and would not rise. Given the increases in other regular bills, like gas and electrivicity, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out why people felt that way.
Can I also just say how appalling I find the comments that the poorest don’t pay council tax with the implication that we could just increase it by over 3 per cent and somehow no-one would get hurt. During the election I challenged people on this site to go round some working class areas and chap on the doors and tell people that they can afford to pay more council tax. I don’t think many of you did it but the challenge still holds. Talk to a working family just about managing to get by or a pensioner couple on a modest income which takes them just above the threshhold where they qualify for council tax benefit and tell them they can afford to get by.
Honestly you just don’t have a clue.
#28 by James on August 28, 2011 - 4:58 pm
That’s a pretty insulting way of looking at one side of the issue. If you have ever talked to people who fear for their local services, they know there’s more to this issue than “do you want to pay less tax?”. I know that doesn’t matter to the SNP, but it certainly matters to many of the more vulnerable. Of course, if you pretend locally that people can have Scandinavian services with American tax levels, they’ll like it. But it’s just not honest, is it?
#29 by Indy on August 28, 2011 - 9:26 pm
They are usually the same people James. Pensioners, low paid families, young couples just starting out and figuring out if they can afford a morgage or to start a family. Until the Scottish Parliament can collectively figure out a way to tax people for local services which is based on ability to pay the council tax freeze must be kept in place. Because unless you are going to raise it by a huge amount it would not be capable of off-setting the cuts which are going to happen but would still cause pain to individual households – and if you raise it by a huge amount you are going to hammer the working poor – people whose employment is insecure, who are struggling with rising bills and just hanging on by their fingernails in many cases – and pensioners.
#30 by James on August 28, 2011 - 10:47 pm
Actually, problematic as the freeze is, CT isn’t worth saving. I’d abolish it and replace it with LVT, which specifically taxes ownership of assets, not just occupation of them, and not just shifting all the burden onto income as a proxy for wealth. But you knew that.